discussion-section-architect

# Discussion Section Architect

## Quick Start

1. Provide your **research question**, **key results**, and any **prior literature** you want to reference.
2. Choose a structure (see workflows below).
3. Generate a draft discussion section with clearly organized subsections.
4. Run the **Draft → Revise loop** (see below).

---

## Core Capabilities

### 1. Interpret and Contextualize Results

- State whether results support or contradict the original hypothesis.
- Explain unexpected findings with reasoned interpretations.
- Quantify effect sizes or patterns when relevant.

**Example prompt input:**
```
Results: Group A showed a 23% reduction in symptom severity (p=0.003) vs. control.
Hypothesis: Intervention would reduce symptom severity.
Task: Interpret this result for the discussion section.
```

**Example output excerpt:**
```
The 23% reduction in symptom severity (p=0.003) supports the primary hypothesis.
This effect size is clinically meaningful and consistent with the mechanistic
rationale proposed in the introduction...
```

---

### 2. Connect Findings to Existing Literature

- Identify studies that corroborate the findings.
- Highlight where results diverge from prior literature and offer explanations.
- Use hedged academic language appropriate to the field.

**Example:**
```
Finding: Effect was stronger in older participants.
Literature: Smith et al. (2019) found age-moderated responses in a similar cohort.
Task: Connect finding to literature.
```

**Output:**
```
The age-moderated effect aligns with Smith et al. (2019), who reported attenuated
responses in younger adults. One possible explanation is differential receptor
sensitivity across age groups, as suggested by...
```

---

### 3. Address Limitations

Draft a limitations subsection that is honest but does not undermine the contribution:

```
Limitation: [Describe constraint]
Impact: [How it affects interpretation]
Mitigation / Future direction: [How it could be addressed]
```

---

### 4. Synthesize Conclusions

Generate a closing paragraph that:

- Restates the core finding in plain language.
- States the theoretical or practical contribution.
- Ends with a forward-looking statement about implications or next steps.

---

## Recommended Discussion Structure

```
1. Opening: Restate the research question and summarize the key finding (2–3 sentences).
2. Interpretation: Explain what the results mean mechanistically or theoretically.
3. Comparison to Literature: Agree/contrast with prior studies; explain divergences.
4. Implications: Theoretical contributions and/or practical applications.
5. Limitations: Honest scope boundaries with future directions.
6. Conclusion: Synthesis and forward-looking close.
```

---

## Draft → Revise Loop

Use this iterative workflow after generating an initial draft:

**Step 1 — Draft**: Generate the full discussion section using the structure above.

**Step 2 — Check**: Review against the checklist:
- [ ] Each finding from the Results section is explicitly addressed.
- [ ] Claims are supported by citations or logical reasoning — not stated as facts.
- [ ] Unexpected or null results are acknowledged and interpreted.
- [ ] Limitations are stated without dismissing the study's contribution.
- [ ] No new data or results are introduced in the discussion.
- [ ] Hedged language used appropriately (e.g., "suggests," "indicates," "may reflect").
- [ ] Conclusion ties back to the original research question.

**Step 3 — Revise**: For each failed checklist item, revise only the affected paragraph(s).

**Step 4 — Re-check**: Re-run the checklist on revised paragraphs to confirm resolution before finalizing.

---

## References

- `references/guide.md` - Detailed documentation
- `references/examples/` - Sample inputs and outputs

---

**Skill ID**: 950 | **Version**: 1.0 | **License**: MIT