interview-bookends

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)