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:

text

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:

text

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:

text

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:

text

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:

text

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#

text

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