| name | interview-bookends |
| description | Write article introductions and conclusions for sociology interview research. Takes theory and findings sections as input and produces publication-ready framing prose. |
Interview Bookends
You help sociologists write introductions and conclusions for interview-based research articles. Given the Theory section and Findings section, you guide users through drafting the framing prose that opens and closes the article.
When to Use This Skill
Use this skill when users have:
- A drafted Theory/Literature Review section
- A drafted Findings section
- Need help writing the Introduction and/or Conclusion
This skill assumes the intellectual work is done—the contribution is clear, the findings are established. The task is crafting the framing prose that positions the contribution and delivers on promises.
Connection to Other Skills
| Skill | Purpose | Key Output |
|---|
| interview-analyst | Analyzes interview data | Codes, patterns, quote database |
| interview-writeup | Drafts methods and findings | Methods & Findings sections |
| interview-bookends | Drafts introduction and conclusion | Complete framing prose |
This skill completes the article writing workflow.
Core Principles (from Genre Analysis)
Based on systematic analysis of 80 sociology interview articles from Social Problems and Social Forces:
1. Introductions Are Efficient; Conclusions Do Heavy Work
- 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)
2. Phenomenon-Led Openings Dominate (74%)
- 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
3. Parallel Coherence Is Normative (66%)
- 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%)
4. Match Framing to Contribution Type
Five cluster styles require different approaches:
| Cluster | Intro Signature | Conclusion Signature |
|---|
| Gap-Filler | Short, phenomenon-led, data early | Long (2x), summary + implications |
| Theory-Extension | Theory-led (30%), framework early | Framework affirmation |
| Concept-Building | Long, motivate conceptual need | Balanced length, concept consolidation |
| Synthesis | Multiple traditions named | Integration claims, no deflation |
| Problem-Driven | Stakes-led (25%), policy focus | Escalation to implications |
Workflow Phases
Phase 0: Intake & Assessment
Goal: Review inputs, identify cluster, confirm scope.
- 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
Guide: phases/phase0-intake.md
Pause: Confirm cluster identification and scope before drafting.
Phase 1: Introduction Drafting
Goal: Write an introduction that opens the circuit effectively.
- 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)
Guides:
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.
Phase 2: Conclusion Drafting
Goal: Write a conclusion that closes the circuit and projects significance.
- 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
Guides:
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.
Phase 3: Coherence Check
Goal: Ensure introduction and conclusion work together.
- 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
Guide: phases/phase3-coherence.md
Cluster Profiles
Reference these guides for cluster-specific writing:
| Guide | Cluster |
|---|
clusters/gap-filler.md | Gap-Filler Minimalist (38.8%) |
clusters/theory-extension.md | Theory-Extension Framework Applier (22.5%) |
clusters/concept-building.md | Concept-Building Architect (15.0%) |
clusters/synthesis.md | Synthesis Integrator (17.5%) |
clusters/problem-driven.md | Problem-Driven Pragmatist (15.0%) |
Technique Guides
| Guide | Purpose |
|---|
techniques/opening-moves.md | Five opening move types with examples |
techniques/conclusion-moves.md | Structural elements of conclusions |
techniques/callbacks.md | Closing the circuit effectively |
techniques/coherence-types.md | Parallel, Escalators, Bookends, Deflators |
techniques/signature-phrases.md | Common phrases for intros and conclusions |
Key Statistics (Benchmarks)
Introduction Benchmarks
| Feature | Typical Value |
|---|
| Word count | 600-950 words |
| Paragraphs | 4-8 |
| Opening move | Phenomenon-led (74%) |
| Data mention | Middle of section |
| Roadmap | Present in 40% |
Conclusion Benchmarks
| Feature | Typical Value |
|---|
| Word count | 900-1,450 words |
| Paragraphs | 6-10 |
| Opening move | Restatement (71%) |
| Limitations | Present in 69% |
| Future directions | Present in 76% |
| Callback | Required (100%) |
Coherence Benchmarks
| Type | Frequency | Meaning |
|---|
| Parallel | 66% | Deliver what you promised |
| Escalators | 20% | Exceed your promises |
| Bookends | 8% | Strong mirror structure |
| Deflators | 6% | Fall short (avoid) |
Prohibited Moves
In Introductions
- 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)
In Conclusions
- 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)
Output Expectations
Provide the user with:
- 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
Invoking Phase Agents
Use the Task tool for each phase:
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.
Model recommendations:
- Phase 0 (intake): Sonnet
- Phase 1 (introduction): Opus (requires narrative craft)
- Phase 2 (conclusion): Opus (requires integration)
- Phase 3 (coherence): Opus (requires evaluative judgment)
