• A drafted Theory/Literature Review section
• A drafted Findings section
• Need help writing the Introduction and/or Conclusion

• Median introduction: 761 words, 6 paragraphs
• Median conclusion: 1,173 words, 8 paragraphs
• Ratio: Conclusions are 67% longer than introductions
• Introductions subtract (narrow to the gap); conclusions expand (project to significance)

• Most introductions open with empirical phenomena, not questions
• Question-led openings are rare (1%)—they feel performative
• Theory-led openings cluster in theory-extension articles (30%)
• Show the puzzle; don't just assert it exists

• Introductions make promises; conclusions must keep them
• Escalation (20%) is acceptable—exceeding promises reads as discovery
• Deflation (6%) is penalized—overpromising damages credibility
• Callbacks to introduction are universal (100%)

• Read the Theory section to understand positioning and contribution type
• Read the Findings section to understand what was discovered
• Identify which cluster the article inhabits
• Confirm whether user needs introduction, conclusion, or both

phases/phase0-intake.md

Pause: Confirm cluster identification and scope before drafting.

• Choose opening move type (phenomenon, stakes, case, theory, question)
• Establish stakes and context
• Identify the gap/puzzle
• Preview data and argument
• Include roadmap (optional but recommended for complex articles)

• phases/phase1-introduction.md

  (main workflow)

• techniques/opening-moves.md

  (opening strategies)

• clusters/

  (cluster-specific guidance)

Pause: Review introduction draft for coherence with theory section.

• Open with restatement or summary (not the same words as intro)
• Recap key findings efficiently
• State contribution claims
• Integrate with prior literature
• Acknowledge limitations
• Project implications and future directions
• Craft callback to introduction
• End with resonant closing

• phases/phase2-conclusion.md

  (main workflow)

• techniques/conclusion-moves.md

  (structural elements)

• techniques/callbacks.md

  (closing the circuit)

Pause: Review conclusion for coherence with introduction.

• Verify vocabulary echoes (key terms appear in both)
• Check promise-delivery alignment
• Assess coherence type (Parallel, Escalators, Bookends)
• Confirm callback is present and effective
• Calibrate ambition across sections

phases/phase3-coherence.md

• Opening with a direct question (unless theory-extension)
• Claiming the literature "has overlooked" without justification
• Promising more than the findings deliver
• Lengthy method description (save for Methods section)
• Excessive roadmapping (structure should feel natural)

• Introducing new findings not in Findings section
• Forgetting to callback to introduction
• Over-hedging empirical claims
• Skipping limitations entirely (looks defensive)
• Ending with limitations (save strong closing for last)
• Repeating introduction verbatim (callback ≠ copy)

• A drafted Introduction matching their cluster style
• A drafted Conclusion with all standard elements
• A coherence memo assessing promise-delivery alignment
• Revision suggestions if coherence issues detected

Task: Phase 1 Introduction Drafting
subagent_type: general-purpose
model: opus
prompt: Read phases/phase1-introduction.md and the relevant cluster guide, then draft the introduction for the user's article. The theory section and findings are provided. Match the opening move and length to cluster conventions.

• Phase 0 (intake): Sonnet
• Phase 1 (introduction): Opus (requires narrative craft)
• Phase 2 (conclusion): Opus (requires integration)
• Phase 3 (coherence): Opus (requires evaluative judgment)