write-section
Skill17 starsChanged 9 months agoMITView on GitHub
Write or revise any thesis chapter section with section-specific templates, style matching, and verification
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- QJHWC/PaperForgetheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- QJHWC/PaperForge★ 638same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository11 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- build-twfe-explainerSkill
- check-methodologySkill
- compile-thesisSkill
- generate-mapsSkill
- proofreadSkill
- review-codeSkill
- rewrite-literatureSkill
- thesis-excellenceSkill
- verify-claimsSkill
- write-introductionSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
18 rules. About 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 10 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈8
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
10
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 8
Write or revise a section of the thesis.
- Very specific: line 19
If argument is introduction, invoke the /write-introduction skill instead.
- Distinctive: line 25
Before writing any section, you MUST:
- Distinctive: line 76
No citations in the abstract
- Distinctive: line 78
Must stand completely alone
- Distinctive: line 79
Use present tense throughout
- Distinctive: line 80
Every sentence must be informative (no filler)
- Distinctive: line 95
Position the thesis: Every subsection must contain at least one passage comparing prior work to this thesis
- Very specific: line 96
Forward references: Use \Cref{ch:methodology}, \Cref{ch:data}, etc.
- Very specific: line 98
No orphan citations: Every \cite key must exist in references.bib
- Very specific: line 130
After /write-introduction migrates the detailed contribution to Ch.1:
- Distinctive: line 172
Honest about limitations: Don't oversell
- Very specific: line 187
Every table must have a \label{tab:app_...} and be referenced from the main text
- Very specific: line 188
Use threeparttable with notes
- Very specific: line 201
Every figure must have a \label{fig:app_...} and be referenced from main text
- Very specific: line 203
Check that files exist in results/figures/ before referencing
- Very specific: line 217
Verify all \Cref and \cref targets exist.
- Very specific: line 221
Verify all \citet and \citep keys exist in references.bib.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Write Section Skill
Write or revise a section of the thesis. This is a generalizable skill that adapts to any chapter based on section-specific templates and the established conventions from Chapters 3-5.
Arguments
introduction— Redirects to the/write-introductionskill (specialized)literature [section]— Write/revise a section of Ch.2 (e.g.,literature 2.1.4)abstract— Write the thesis abstract (~250 words)conclusion— Write Ch.6 (Conclusion)appendix Aorappendix B— Write appendix contentrevise <chapter>— Revise an existing chapter (e.g.,revise data,revise methodology)
If argument is introduction, invoke the /write-introduction skill instead.
Pre-Writing Protocol (ALL sections)
Before writing any section, you MUST:
- Read the target file to understand current state (stub? outline? partial draft? complete?)
- Read
thesis/CLAUDE.mdfor conventions, bib keys, custom commands - Read
CLAUDE.md(root) for project context, measure definitions, findings - Read
.claude/reference/literature-evidence.mdfor concrete findings from 20+ papers — use for any section that references literature - Read at least 40 lines from
03_data.tex,04_methodology.tex, and05_results.texto internalize the writing style - Read
references.bibto know which citations are available
Using the Narrative Architect
For literature-heavy sections (Ch.2 subsections, Ch.1 Antecedents, Ch.6 Interpretation), dispatch the narrative-architect agent BEFORE drafting. Provide:
- Goal: What the section needs to establish
- Target section: e.g., "§2.2 — Economic Shocks and Political Behavior"
- Constraints: Length, must-cite papers, emphasis points
The architect returns a paragraph-by-paragraph outline with specific paper citations and transition strategies. Use this as the backbone for your draft.
Style Requirements (from Chapters 3-5)
| Dimension | Convention |
| Person | First singular: "I define", "I estimate" |
| Tense | Present for methodology, past for data/literature |
| Sentences | 25-35 words average, clause-rich |
| Paragraphs | Topic sentence → support → transition |
| Asides | Em-dashes (---), not parentheses |
| Enumeration | Inline (i)/(ii)/(iii), NOT bullet points for arguments |
| Citations | \citet{} for subject, \citep{} for parenthetical |
| Cross-refs | \Cref{} start of sentence, \cref{} mid-sentence |
| Numbers | Exact figures inline, never rounded |
| Emphasis | \emph{} on first use, never \textbf{} in prose |
| Hedging | "consistent with", "suggesting", "indicating" |
| Forbidden | "interestingly", "it is worth noting", "we", rhetorical questions |
Section-Specific Templates
Abstract (~250 words)
Structure:
1. Context (1-2 sentences): The phenomenon and why it matters
2. Research question (1 sentence): Clear, precise
3. Method (2-3 sentences): Data, measure, estimation strategy
4. Findings (2-3 sentences): Main results with magnitudes
5. Contribution (1-2 sentences): What this adds to the literatureRules:
- No citations in the abstract
- No forward references
- Must stand completely alone
- Use present tense throughout
- Every sentence must be informative (no filler)
Literature Review Section (Ch.2)
Structure per section:
1. Opening sentence: What this section covers and why
2. Core papers (3-5 per subsection): Narrative synthesis, NOT paper-by-paper summary
3. Comparative passages: "While X does A, Y does B, I instead do C"
4. Forward reference: Bridge to this thesis's approach
5. Closing transition to next sectionRules:
- Synthesize, don't summarize: Group papers by finding/methodology, not chronologically
- Position the thesis: Every subsection must contain at least one passage comparing prior work to this thesis
- Forward references: Use
\Cref{ch:methodology},\Cref{ch:data}, etc. - Discursive comparison (from style-paraphraser): "While \citet{frey2018robot} uses commuting zones, I exploit group-level variation..."
- No orphan citations: Every
\citekey must exist inreferences.bib - Use the evidence base: Consult
.claude/reference/literature-evidence.mdfor concrete findings and magnitudes. Use Section 7 flow templates as starting points for the narrative-architect agent.
New Section: §2.1.4 — The Global Decline of the Labor Share
This section needs to be ADDED to Ch.2. Template:
Content:
- Karabarbounis & Neiman (2014): Global labor share decline, investment goods prices
- Autor et al. (2020): Superstar firms and labor share
- Barkai (2020): Declining labor share and rising profit share
- Connection to task displacement: labor share decline as MEASUREMENT strategy
- Forward ref to \Cref{subsec:industry_td}: "I exploit this relationship..."This section bridges the labor economics literature to the measurement strategy in Ch.4. It explains WHY declining labor share captures automation exposure.
Expanded Section: §2.2.3 — Shift-Share Identification
Expand the existing methodological parallels section:
Additional content:
- Borusyak, Hull & Jaravel (2022): Shift-share as IV, conditions for valid inference
- Goldsmith-Pinkham, Sorkin & Swift (2020): Shares-based vs shifts-based identification
- Connection to THIS thesis's design: predetermined shares from ACS, industry-level shifts from BEA-KLEMS
- Forward ref to \Cref{sec:empirical}Shortened Section: §2.4 — Contribution
After /write-introduction migrates the detailed contribution to Ch.1:
New structure (1-2 paragraphs only):
- Brief enumeration of 4 contributions
- "As articulated in \Cref{ch:introduction}, this thesis contributes..."
- No detailed exposition (that's now in Ch.1)Conclusion (Ch.6)
Structure:
1. Summary of findings (2-3 paragraphs)
- Restate RQ, method, main result
- Key magnitudes (β, lag structure)
- Heterogeneous effects
2. Interpretation (2-3 paragraphs)
- What the results mean for the backlash vs insecurity debate
- Why automation → conservative (mechanism)
- Connection to broader populism literature
3. Policy implications (1-2 paragraphs)
- Just transitions, retraining programs
- Political economy of automation policy
4. Limitations (1-2 paragraphs)
- Ecological inference caveat
- Pseudo-panel vs true panel
- Oster δ = 0.04 (sensitivity to unobservables)
- External validity (US only)
5. Future research (1 paragraph)
- Individual-level panel data
- European comparison
- Mechanism decomposition
- GenAI era extensionRules:
- No new information: Everything must reference findings from Ch.5
- Honest about limitations: Don't oversell
- Forward-looking: End on future research, not caveats
- Length: ~4-6 pages, not longer
Appendix A (Additional Tables)
Content:
- Full regression tables with all coefficients
- Alternative specifications mentioned in Ch.5
- Summary statistics by demographic group
- Industry-level task displacement valuesRules:
- Every table must have a
\label{tab:app_...}and be referenced from the main text - Use
threeparttablewith notes - Match the formatting of Ch.5 tables exactly
Appendix B (Additional Figures)
Content:
- Diagnostic plots (residuals, leverage, etc.)
- Additional descriptive figures
- Sensitivity analysis plotsRules:
- Every figure must have a
\label{fig:app_...}and be referenced from main text - Include substantive figure notes
- Check that files exist in
results/figures/before referencing
Post-Writing Protocol (ALL sections)
1. Compile
cd /Users/alessandro/Projects/Tesi/thesis && tectonic main.tex2. Cross-Reference Check
Verify all \Cref and \cref targets exist. Tectonic will show Undefined reference warnings.
3. Citation Check
Verify all \citet and \citep keys exist in references.bib. Tectonic will show Undefined citation warnings.
4. Consistency Check
- Notation matches the notation registry (
.claude/rules/notation-registry.md) - Sign convention: higher TD = more automation exposure
- Group definition: 18 groups (Edu x Gender x Age)
- Panel sizes: national 486, state 23,814
5. Style Self-Review
Re-read the draft against the style checklist above. If the prose doesn't match Chapters 3-5, revise or dispatch to the style-paraphraser agent.
Multi-Pass Workflow
For any non-trivial section (>100 lines), follow this multi-pass approach:
Pass 1: RESEARCH
- Read relevant chapters, papers, analysis outputs
- Identify all citations needed
- List all cross-references needed
Pass 2: OUTLINE
- Write paragraph-level outline (1 sentence per paragraph)
- Verify logical flow
- Check that all required content is covered
Pass 3: DRAFT
- Write full prose following section template
- Insert all citations and cross-references
- Mark uncertain numbers with % TODO
Pass 4: STYLE
- Match voice/rhythm to Chapters 3-5
- Fix sentence length, transitions, paragraph structure
- Remove filler and passive voice
Pass 5: VERIFY
- Compile with tectonic
- Check all references and citations
- Content verification against source materialFor short sections (<100 lines), passes 2-3 can be combined.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

