agentleFS
matthewdigiuseppematthewdigiuseppe/MStack/skills/abstract-shotgun/SKILL.md

abstract-shotgun

Skill17 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub

Generates 4-6 abstract variants with different positioning bets (puzzle-, policy-, theory-, finding-, anomaly-first), tagged by audience and risk, and recommends one for the target journal. Use when a full draft exists and the user wants the abstract written, improved, or reframed.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

2 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈1

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Stage: write · Voice: writer, anchored to voice.writing_style in .mstack/config.yaml

    line 12
  2. Distinctive:

    Over the word limit: If the cap is 200, every variant is ≤ 200.

    line 47

≈ “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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

/mstack:abstract-shotgun

Stage: write · Voice: writer, anchored to voice.writing_style in .mstack/config.yaml

On a full draft. The abstract is the hardest paragraph and the one editors use to desk-reject or send out; generate variants rather than converging on the first.

Procedure

  1. Load paper/sections/intro.tex, results.tex, discussion.tex, and .mstack/config.yaml (target journals).
  2. Voice: invoke the voice.writing_style skill if set; otherwise clean generic academic prose (short sentences, active verbs, no hedge-stuffing).
  3. Generate 4–6 variants, each leading differently: puzzle-first ("Why does X happen when Y predicts the opposite?"); policy-first ("When governments do X, does it work?"); theory-first ("We argue that X causes Y because Z"); finding-first ("Using a quasi-experiment in X, we find Y"); anomaly-first ("Standard accounts predict X; we find Y"); method-first (methods papers only).
  4. Each ≤ 250 words (or the journal cap if shorter) and contains the question, the design with its estimand, the data, the finding with a number in substantive units, and the contribution (the abstract bar in ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/writing-conventions.md); no citations, no hedging stack; only the order varies.
  5. Tag each with lead-with style, implicit audience (IPE, comparative, methods, public), and the framing's main risk (e.g. puzzle-first can look unengaged with the literature).
  6. Write the file, per format in .mstack/config.yaml. LaTeX: paper/sections/abstract.tex, variants as % comments, the recommended one uncommented inside \begin{abstract} … \end{abstract}. Quarto: abstract.qmd with <!-- … --> comments.

    % VARIANT 1 (puzzle-first):
    % <text>
    %
    % VARIANT 2 (policy-first):
    % <text>
    ...
    
    % --- RECOMMENDED ---
    <recommended variant text, uncommented>
  7. Recommend the variant that fits the top target journal, justified in one sentence.

Outputs

  • paper/sections/abstract.tex — variants as comments, one recommended.
  • Summary block: variants with one-line tags + recommendation.

Anti-patterns

  • Variants that open the same way. That is not a shotgun.
  • Over the word limit. If the cap is 200, every variant is ≤ 200.
  • Ignoring the journal. Some prefer puzzle-first, some finding-first.

Next

/mstack:title-shotgun to pair a title with the chosen framing. /mstack:draft-section abstract gives a baseline beforehand.

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.