discussion-polisher

name

discussion-polisher

description

Academic Discussion section polisher for research papers. Use this skill whenever the user wants to improve, restructure, evaluate, or rewrite the Discussion section of a research paper. Triggers include: "polish my discussion", "my discussion is too descriptive", "I'm just repeating my results", "help me write a stronger discussion", or uploading a paper and asking to improve the discussion. Also trigger when the user asks how to interpret findings, how to compare with literature, or how to structure the discussion section.

Discussion Polisher Skill

Polishes and restructures the Discussion section of research papers using Yang & Allison's (2003) seven-Move framework — the most comprehensive and widely validated model for Discussion sections across disciplines. Default output language is English unless the user specifies otherwise.

---

Step 1: Read the Input

File input — use the first applicable method:

1. Content already in context → process directly
2. File reading tool available → use it
3. Code execution available → .docx: python-docx / .pdf: pdfplumber / .txt: open()
4. Nothing available → ask user to paste the Discussion section (and Results if available)

After reading, identify:

• Whether Discussion is combined with Results ("Results and Discussion")
• Whether findings supported or contradicted the hypothesis
• Key findings to be interpreted

---

Step 2: Diagnose the Existing Text

Map the current text against the seven-Move framework. Identify which Moves are present, missing, or underdeveloped.

Consult references/moves.md for detailed Move rules.

The most common Discussion problems:

• Over-reporting: repeating results instead of interpreting them (confusing Move 2 with Move 3)
• Missing Move 3: no interpretation — just "results showed X" with no "this means Y"
• Missing Move 4: no comparison with prior literature
• Vague limitations: "this study has some limitations" without specifying them
• Weak Move 7: no implications or future directions

Share a brief diagnosis before rewriting.

---

Step 3: Polish Using the Yang & Allison Seven-Move Framework

Read references/moves.md for full rules, then apply. Moves 2–6 may recur and interleave across multiple findings — this cycling is expected.

Move 1 — Background information Restate the research context and purpose briefly.

Move 2 — Reporting results Summarize key findings (brief — not a repeat of the Results section).

Move 3 — Summarizing results Integrate findings into a coherent overall picture.

Move 4 — Commenting on results ← The intellectual core

• Interpret what results mean
• Compare with prior literature (agree or disagree, and why)
• Account for unexpected or contradictory findings

Move 5 — Summarizing the study Draw an overall conclusion from the full set of findings.

Move 6 — Evaluating the study Assess the study itself: limitations, strengths, and methodological considerations.

Move 7 — Deductions from the research Look forward: implications for theory, practice, or future research.

Polishing priorities:

1. Ensure Move 3 is present — the most commonly missing move (mere result repetition is not interpretation)
2. Ensure Move 4 compares with specific prior studies (not vague "prior research")
3. Ensure Move 6 limitations are specific (not generic)
4. Ensure Move 7 suggestions are actionable (not just "more research is needed")
5. Apply correct tense/voice and hedging per Move (see references/language.md)

---

Step 4: Apply Language Standards

Consult references/language.md for tense, voice, modal verb, and hedging rules.

Key rules:

• Results reporting (Move 2): past simple, active
• Interpretation (Move 3/4): present simple, active, with hedges
• Literature comparison (Move 4): past for their findings, present for comparison
• Limitations (Move 6): past simple or past perfect, passive preferred
• Implications / future work (Move 7): modal verbs (should, could, may)

---

Step 5: Output

Present the polished Discussion section with a brief note explaining:

• Which Moves were added, strengthened, or reorganized
• Interpretive sentences added vs. result-repetition removed
• Specific literature comparisons added (or flagged as needing author input)
• Word count (typical: 500–1000 words for term paper; up to 2000 for journal article)

Self-check before output:

• Does Move 4 interpret, not just describe?
• Does Move 4 mention specific prior work (not just "previous studies")?
• Are limitations specific (sample size? design? scope?) in Move 6?
• Does Move 7 have actionable suggestions with rationale?
• Is hedging appropriate — present in interpretation, absent in factual reporting?
• Are Moves 2–6 cycling naturally across findings, not just appearing once?