evidence-driven-writing
Skill0 starsChanged 40 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use when writing or revising Introduction, Related Work, background, literature synthesis, or any section where references must drive claims
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Norman-bury/articlewriting-skillword for word, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- Norman-bury/research-writing-skillword for word, first seen Oct 8, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 2
- Norman-bury/research-writing-skill★ 3.4k100% same
- Norman-bury/articlewriting-skill★ 3.4k100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
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 repository21 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- research-writing-assistantSkill
- brainstorming-researchSkill
- environment-setupSkill
- experiment-results-planningSkill
- figures-diagramSkill
- figures-pythonSkill
- latex-outputSkill
- literature-reviewSkill
- paper-orchestrationSkill
- peer-reviewSkill
- prompts-collectionSkill
- statistical-analysisSkill
- using-research-writingSkill
- verificationSkill
- writing-chaptersSkill
- writing-coreSkill
- writing-humanitiesSkill
- writing-lawSkill
- writing-medicalSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
7 rules. About 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈7
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 12
Do not write the section until an evidence map and paragraph blueprint exist.
- Distinctive: line 22
Create one row per usable source:
- Distinctive: line 29
Use the user's literature pool first.
- Distinctive: line 30
Use only information present in title, abstract, DOI metadata, or user-provided notes unless full text is available.
- Distinctive: line 47
Only after the blueprint is complete may manuscript prose be written.
- Distinctive: line 61
Do not end the Introduction with a long mechanical chapter map.
- Distinctive: line 88
If a paragraph can be converted into a table row without losing meaning, it is not yet manuscript prose.
≈ “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
Evidence-Driven Writing
This skill turns a literature pool into manuscript argument. It is required for Introduction, Related Work, and any background section with citations.
Hard Gate
Do not write the section until an evidence map and paragraph blueprint exist.
Required artifacts:
refs/evidence-map.mdorplan/evidence-map.mdplan/chapter-blueprints/<section>-blueprint.mdplan/review/evidence-coverage.md
Evidence Map
Create one row per usable source:
| Source ID | Citation | Source type | Abstract-level finding | Usable fact | Supported claim | Citation slot | Risk |
Rules:
- Use the user's literature pool first.
- Use only information present in title, abstract, DOI metadata, or user-provided notes unless full text is available.
- One citation must support one concrete claim, not a vague field statement.
- Mark weak or indirect support as
Risk: indirect.
Paragraph Blueprint
For each paragraph, define:
### Paragraph N
- Role: context / method landscape / limitation / gap / contribution
- Main claim:
- Evidence IDs:
- Contrast or transition:
- Forbidden content:Only after the blueprint is complete may manuscript prose be written.
Introduction Pattern
A publishable technical Introduction usually follows this chain:
- Application context and why the problem matters, supported by foundational or survey citations.
- Existing technical routes, grouped by method family rather than by paper list.
- Bottleneck cascade: what each route solves and what remains unsolved.
- Specific research gap that the proposed method can realistically address.
- Contributions written as prose or a short list only if the target style allows it.
For computer science / engineering SCI drafts, integrate the most relevant related-work synthesis into the Introduction unless the locked outline explicitly requires a standalone Related Work chapter. The section must read as an argument: field pressure, existing routes, unresolved bottleneck, proposed position, and contribution boundary.
Do not end the Introduction with a long mechanical chapter map. One concise manuscript-organization paragraph is enough.
Related Work Pattern
Organize by theme, not by chronological paper dump:
- Theme opening: define the method family or research stream.
- Evidence synthesis: compare 2-4 sources in the same paragraph.
- Critical boundary: state what the theme does not solve.
- Bridge: explain why the next theme or the proposed method is needed.
Body Contamination Firewall
User requirements and process notes must not enter manuscript text. Phrases such as "write naturally", "avoid generic wording", "discussion prompt", "fill later", "user should replace", and "this section is a template" belong in plan files, never in chapters.
Compression is not deletion. When shortening, preserve the claim, evidence, method condition, and limitation.
Anti-Enumeration Gate
Literature-driven sections fail review if they read like a sequence of source notes. Each paragraph must synthesize at least two of the following:
- a problem condition;
- a method family;
- a limitation shared by multiple studies;
- a direct bridge to the proposed method;
- a citation-backed boundary.
If a paragraph can be converted into a table row without losing meaning, it is not yet manuscript prose.
GPR Sample
For a reusable example of literature-driven argument structure extracted from the user's GPR passage, read references/gpr-introduction-example.md. Use it as a pattern, not as content for unrelated papers.
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.

