Introduction Stepwise Reviser
Overview
Use this skill to revise the complete English text of a research-paper Introduction through a documented sequence of checks derived from p2.txt: significance, previous/current research, gap/problem/opportunity, and the present work. Preserve the paper's meaning, citations, claims, paragraph order, and discipline-specific terminology while improving rhetorical clarity and academic phrasing.
Before revising, read references/introduction-checklist.md. It contains the p2-derived step checklist, phrase patterns, and example transformations.
Required Outputs
Always save two Markdown files unless the user explicitly asks for different filenames or formats:
- Method report: if the input has a filename, save
<stem>-introduction-method.md; otherwise save introduction-revision-method.md.
- Complete revised document: if the input has a filename, save
<stem>-introduction-revised.md; otherwise save introduction-revised-document.md.
Save outputs beside the input file when the Introduction comes from a file. If the Introduction comes from the prompt, save outputs in the current working directory.
Workflow
- Read the full Introduction text from the user's message or file. If no Introduction text is available, ask for it.
- Preserve structural units: title or heading, paragraph breaks, citations, tables, numbered claims, abbreviations, formulas, quotations, and reference markers.
- Build a rhetorical map of the original Introduction before rewriting: context/significance, prior research, gap/problem/opportunity, present work, and any organization sentence.
- Apply the checklist in
references/introduction-checklist.md one step at a time. At each step, revise the entire Introduction draft as it stands after the previous step, but only make edits justified by the current step.
- After every step, record the step result and reasons in the method report. Include the full draft after that step, not just isolated snippets, unless the Introduction is extremely long; in that case, include every changed paragraph and clearly mark unchanged paragraphs.
- Include rich examples for every step in the method report. Prefer examples adapted to the user's topic when possible; otherwise use general research-writing examples. Label examples as examples, not as claims about the user's study.
- After the final step, run a consistency pass comparing the original Introduction with the revised Introduction for meaning, evidence strength, tense, modality, citations, numbers, terminology, and paragraph order.
- Write the complete revised document as clean prose only. Do not include the report, commentary, checklists, or examples in the revised-document file.
Method Report Structure
Use this structure for the method report:
# Introduction Revision Method
## Source Handling
- Input source:
- Output files:
- Preservation notes:
## Original Rhetorical Map
| Paragraph | Main function | Notes |
|---|---|---|
## Step 1: Source Preservation and Rhetorical Map
### Checks Applied
### Draft After This Step
### Modification Reasons
### Examples
## Step 2: Establish Significance
### Checks Applied
### Draft After This Step
### Modification Reasons
### Examples
## Step 3: Synthesize Previous and Current Research
### Checks Applied
### Draft After This Step
### Modification Reasons
### Examples
## Step 4: Articulate the Gap, Problem, or Research Opportunity
### Checks Applied
### Draft After This Step
### Modification Reasons
### Examples
## Step 5: State the Present Work
### Checks Applied
### Draft After This Step
### Modification Reasons
### Examples
## Step 6: Integrate Flow and Final Consistency
### Checks Applied
### Draft After This Step
### Modification Reasons
### Examples
## Final Verification
- Meaning preserved:
- Claims/citations preserved:
- Tense/modality preserved:
- Paragraph structure preserved:
- Remaining issues:
In Modification Reasons, be concrete: identify which sentence or paragraph changed, what rhetorical function improved, and why the edit follows the current step. If a step requires no substantive edit, keep the previous draft under Draft After This Step and explain why no change was made.
Revision Constraints
- Do not invent research findings, citations, dates, statistics, causal claims, advantages, novelty, or methods.
- Do not strengthen certainty. Preserve modal verbs and hedging such as
may, might, could, suggest, and appears.
- Do not turn a limitation into a stronger criticism than the source supports.
- Preserve author names, citation style, abbreviations, terminology, numbers, units, variables, and quoted text.
- Improve academic phrasing only when it clarifies the Introduction's rhetorical function or sentence-level readability.
- Prefer precise verbs for research activity and contribution. Avoid repetitive generic phrasing such as
did, showed, or found when the actual action is more specific.
- Keep the final revised Introduction coherent as a complete section, not a collection of individually polished sentences.
Quality Checks
Before finalizing, verify that:
- The method report contains all six steps, with a draft, reasons, and examples for each step.
- The final revised-document file contains only the revised Introduction.
- The final Introduction follows the expected progression: significance/context, previous/current research, gap/problem/opportunity, present work, and optional paper organization.
- All edits are traceable to the step checklist.
- The two Markdown files exist at the required paths.
