name: rapid-manuscript-drafter description: Generate structured research manuscript drafts in 10-15 minutes with proper academic sections (Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion). Creates scaffolded drafts with placeholders for data, not fabricated content. Use for quickly producing first drafts from research ideas, speeding up the writing process while maintaining academic integrity. version: 1.0.0 category: research tags:

• research
• writing
• manuscript
• academic
• drafting
• rapid author: ruv mcp_servers: required: [memory-mcp] optional: [sequential-thinking] auto_enable: true

---

Rapid Manuscript Drafter

Purpose

Generate structured, scaffolded research manuscript drafts in 10-15 minutes that provide a solid foundation for academic writing. Unlike tools that fabricate content, this skill creates honest drafts with clear placeholders for user-provided data and findings.

Critical Ethical Stance

This skill NEVER fabricates research results or data.

What we DO:

• Generate document structure and section scaffolding
• Write introduction and background based on known literature
• Create methodology templates based on described approach
• Provide results section structure with [YOUR_DATA] placeholders
• Draft discussion frameworks with logical argument structure

What we DON'T DO:

• Invent experimental results
• Fabricate statistical findings
• Create fake tables or figures with made-up numbers
• Generate citations to non-existent papers

When to Use This Skill

Activate this skill when:

• Have a research idea ready to write up
• Need to quickly produce a first draft
• Want to overcome blank page syndrome
• Preparing a manuscript outline for collaborators
• Writing conference paper with tight deadline
• Need structured template for thesis chapter

DO NOT use this skill for:

• Final polished manuscripts (this is a first draft tool)
• Generating fake research (we don't do that)
• Replacing actual research work

Manuscript Types Supported

1. Research Article (IMRaD format)
2. Conference Paper (shorter, focused)
3. Review Article (literature synthesis)
4. Technical Report
5. Thesis Chapter
6. Grant Proposal Section

Input Contract

input:
  manuscript_type: enum[research_article, conference_paper, review, technical_report, thesis_chapter, grant_section] (required)

  research_content:
    title: string (required)
    abstract_points: array[string] (optional)
    research_question: string (required)
    hypotheses: array[string] (optional)
    methodology_description: string (required)
    key_findings_summary: string (optional, will use placeholders if empty)
    contribution_claims: array[string] (required)

  literature_context:
    key_papers: array[object] (optional)
      title: string
      authors: string
      year: number
      relevance: string
    research_gap: string (required)

  target_venue:
    name: string (optional)
    word_limit: number (optional)
    style: enum[ieee, acm, nature, apa, chicago] (default: apa)

  output_preferences:
    include_placeholders: boolean (default: true)
    include_writing_tips: boolean (default: true)
    generate_outline_first: boolean (default: true)

Output Contract

output:
  manuscript:
    title: string
    sections: array[object]
      name: string
      content: string
      word_count: number
      completeness: percentage
      placeholders: array[string]

  outline:
    structure: object (hierarchical outline)

  metadata:
    total_words: number
    total_placeholders: number
    sections_complete: number
    sections_scaffolded: number
    generation_time: number

  next_steps:
    required_additions: array[string]
    recommended_revisions: array[string]

SOP Phase 1: Outline Generation

Create hierarchical document structure:

## Manuscript Outline: [TITLE]

### 1. Abstract (~250 words)
- Background context (1-2 sentences)
- Research gap/problem (1 sentence)
- Methodology summary (1-2 sentences)
- Key findings (2-3 sentences)
- Implications (1 sentence)

### 2. Introduction (~800-1000 words)
- 2.1 Opening hook and context
- 2.2 Background and related work
- 2.3 Research gap identification
- 2.4 Research questions/hypotheses
- 2.5 Contribution statement
- 2.6 Paper organization

### 3. Related Work (~600-800 words)
- 3.1 [Theme 1 from literature]
- 3.2 [Theme 2 from literature]
- 3.3 Gap analysis and positioning

### 4. Methodology (~800-1200 words)
- 4.1 Research design overview
- 4.2 Data collection
- 4.3 Analysis approach
- 4.4 Validation strategy

### 5. Results (~600-1000 words)
- 5.1 [Finding 1 - placeholder]
- 5.2 [Finding 2 - placeholder]
- 5.3 Summary of findings

### 6. Discussion (~800-1000 words)
- 6.1 Interpretation of results
- 6.2 Comparison with prior work
- 6.3 Implications
- 6.4 Limitations
- 6.5 Future work

### 7. Conclusion (~200-300 words)
- Summary
- Key contributions
- Call to action

### References
- [Placeholder for bibliography]

SOP Phase 2: Section Drafting

Abstract Template

## Abstract

[BACKGROUND CONTEXT - 1-2 sentences about the field and why it matters]

[RESEARCH GAP - 1 sentence identifying the specific problem addressed]

In this work, we [METHODOLOGY SUMMARY - brief description of approach].

[KEY FINDINGS - use provided findings or placeholder]:
- [FINDING 1: YOUR_RESULT_HERE]
- [FINDING 2: YOUR_RESULT_HERE]

Our results demonstrate [IMPLICATION - how this advances the field].

**Keywords**: [keyword1], [keyword2], [keyword3], [keyword4], [keyword5]

Introduction Template

## 1. Introduction

[HOOK - Opening sentence that captures attention and establishes importance]

### Background and Context

[BACKGROUND PARAGRAPH 1 - Establish the broader research area]
The field of [DOMAIN] has seen significant advances in recent years,
particularly in [SPECIFIC AREA] (Author1 et al., YEAR; Author2 et al., YEAR).

[BACKGROUND PARAGRAPH 2 - Narrow to specific topic]
Within this context, [SPECIFIC TOPIC] has emerged as a critical challenge
because [REASON FOR IMPORTANCE].

### Research Gap

Despite these advances, [RESEARCH GAP STATEMENT]. Current approaches
[LIMITATION 1] and [LIMITATION 2]. This limitation is significant because
[WHY IT MATTERS].

### Research Questions

This work addresses the following research questions:
- RQ1: [RESEARCH QUESTION 1]
- RQ2: [RESEARCH QUESTION 2]

### Contributions

The main contributions of this paper are:
1. [CONTRIBUTION 1]
2. [CONTRIBUTION 2]
3. [CONTRIBUTION 3]

### Paper Organization

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews
related work. Section 3 describes our methodology. Section 4 presents
results. Section 5 discusses implications, and Section 6 concludes.

Methodology Template

## 3. Methodology

### 3.1 Research Design Overview

[METHODOLOGY DESCRIPTION - from user input]

Figure 1 illustrates our overall approach.

[FIGURE 1 PLACEHOLDER: Insert methodology flowchart here]

### 3.2 Data Collection

**Dataset/Participants**: [YOUR_DATA_DESCRIPTION_HERE]
- Sample size: [N = YOUR_NUMBER]
- Collection period: [YOUR_DATES]
- Selection criteria: [YOUR_CRITERIA]

**Data Sources**:
- Source 1: [DESCRIPTION]
- Source 2: [DESCRIPTION]

### 3.3 Analysis Approach

[ANALYSIS DESCRIPTION]

The key steps in our analysis are:
1. [STEP 1]
2. [STEP 2]
3. [STEP 3]

### 3.4 Validation Strategy

To ensure validity, we [VALIDATION APPROACH].

- Internal validity: [YOUR_APPROACH]
- External validity: [YOUR_APPROACH]
- Reliability: [YOUR_APPROACH]

Results Template

## 4. Results

### 4.1 [Finding Category 1]

[YOUR RESULTS PARAGRAPH HERE]

Table 1 summarizes [WHAT TABLE SHOWS].

**[TABLE 1 PLACEHOLDER]**
| Metric | Baseline | Proposed | Improvement |
|--------|----------|----------|-------------|
| [Metric 1] | [YOUR_DATA] | [YOUR_DATA] | [YOUR_DATA] |
| [Metric 2] | [YOUR_DATA] | [YOUR_DATA] | [YOUR_DATA] |

### 4.2 [Finding Category 2]

[YOUR RESULTS PARAGRAPH HERE]

Figure 2 illustrates [WHAT FIGURE SHOWS].

**[FIGURE 2 PLACEHOLDER]**: [Description of figure to insert]

### 4.3 Summary of Findings

In summary, our results show:
1. [FINDING SUMMARY 1 - YOUR_TEXT]
2. [FINDING SUMMARY 2 - YOUR_TEXT]
3. [FINDING SUMMARY 3 - YOUR_TEXT]

Discussion Template

## 5. Discussion

### 5.1 Interpretation of Results

Our findings demonstrate [MAIN INTERPRETATION]. This is significant
because [SIGNIFICANCE].

The result that [SPECIFIC FINDING] suggests [INTERPRETATION]. This
aligns with / contradicts [PRIOR WORK] who found [PRIOR FINDING].

### 5.2 Comparison with Prior Work

Compared to [RELATED WORK 1], our approach [COMPARISON]. Unlike
[RELATED WORK 2], we [DIFFERENTIATION].

Table X compares our results with prior work.

**[TABLE X PLACEHOLDER: Comparison with prior work]**

### 5.3 Implications

**Theoretical Implications**: [YOUR_THEORETICAL_IMPLICATIONS]

**Practical Implications**: [YOUR_PRACTICAL_IMPLICATIONS]

### 5.4 Limitations

This work has several limitations:
1. [LIMITATION 1] - [MITIGATION OR FUTURE WORK]
2. [LIMITATION 2] - [MITIGATION OR FUTURE WORK]
3. [LIMITATION 3] - [MITIGATION OR FUTURE WORK]

### 5.5 Future Work

Future research directions include:
- [FUTURE DIRECTION 1]
- [FUTURE DIRECTION 2]
- [FUTURE DIRECTION 3]

Conclusion Template

## 6. Conclusion

This paper addressed [RESEARCH PROBLEM] by [APPROACH SUMMARY].

Our key contributions include:
1. [CONTRIBUTION 1]
2. [CONTRIBUTION 2]
3. [CONTRIBUTION 3]

The results demonstrate [MAIN FINDING SUMMARY]. This work advances
[FIELD] by [HOW IT ADVANCES].

Future work will explore [FUTURE DIRECTION].

[OPTIONAL: Call to action or broader impact statement]

SOP Phase 3: Writing Tips Insertion

Add contextual writing guidance:

<!-- WRITING TIP: Introduction Hook -->
Start with a compelling fact, statistic, or scenario that immediately
demonstrates why this research matters. Avoid generic openings like
"In recent years..." when possible.

<!-- WRITING TIP: Results Section -->
Lead with your most important finding. Use topic sentences that state
the finding, then provide evidence. Don't interpret here - save that
for Discussion.

<!-- WRITING TIP: Placeholder Completion -->
Replace [YOUR_DATA] placeholders with actual values. Ensure all claims
are supported by your actual results.

SOP Phase 4: Quality Checklist

Generate completion checklist:

## Manuscript Completion Checklist

### Structure
- [ ] All sections present and in correct order
- [ ] Logical flow between sections
- [ ] Appropriate section lengths for venue

### Content
- [ ] Abstract accurately summarizes paper
- [ ] Introduction clearly states gap and contributions
- [ ] Methodology reproducible from description
- [ ] Results support claims made
- [ ] Discussion interprets (not repeats) results
- [ ] Limitations honestly acknowledged
- [ ] Conclusion doesn't introduce new material

### Placeholders to Complete
- [ ] [YOUR_DATA] - X occurrences
- [ ] [FIGURE] - X occurrences
- [ ] [TABLE] - X occurrences
- [ ] [CITATION] - X occurrences

### Final Polish
- [ ] Check word count against venue limit
- [ ] Verify citation format matches venue
- [ ] Proofread for clarity and grammar
- [ ] Get feedback from collaborators

Example Execution

Input:

manuscript_type: research_article
research_content:
  title: "Improving Drug Discovery with Graph Neural Networks"
  research_question: "Can graph neural networks improve molecular property
    prediction compared to traditional fingerprint-based methods?"
  methodology_description: "We train GNN models on molecular graphs and
    compare against random forest baselines on three benchmark datasets"
  contribution_claims:
    - "Novel GNN architecture for molecular property prediction"
    - "Comprehensive benchmark on 3 public datasets"
    - "Interpretability analysis of learned representations"
literature_context:
  research_gap: "Existing GNN approaches lack interpretability for
    domain experts in pharmaceutical settings"
target_venue:
  name: "Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling"
  word_limit: 8000
  style: acs

Output (abbreviated):

# Improving Drug Discovery with Graph Neural Networks

## Abstract
Drug discovery remains a costly and time-consuming process, with
molecular property prediction serving as a critical bottleneck...

[KEY FINDINGS PLACEHOLDER: YOUR_ACCURACY_IMPROVEMENT_HERE]

## 1. Introduction
The pharmaceutical industry faces unprecedented challenges...

[Full scaffolded manuscript with placeholders]

## Completion Status
- Sections drafted: 7/7
- Placeholders remaining: 12
- Estimated completion: 60%
- Next steps: Add experimental results, figures, citations

Integration Points

Receives From

• rapid-idea-generator: Research ideas to write up
• research-gap-visualizer: Gap evidence for introduction
• literature-synthesis: Related work content
• visual-asset-generator: Figures and tables

Feeds Into

• research-publication: Final manuscript preparation
• gate-validation: Quality gate for publication readiness

Feature Comparison

Feature	Basic Tools	This Skill
Speed	5 min	10-15 min
Data fabrication	YES (problematic)	NO (placeholders)
Section structure	Yes	Yes (IMRaD)
Writing tips	No	Yes
Completion checklist	No	Yes
Venue customization	No	Yes
Citation placeholders	Fake citations	[CITATION NEEDED] markers
Figures/tables	Fabricated	Placeholders with descriptions

Success Criteria

• All sections generated with appropriate structure
• No fabricated data or results
• Placeholders clearly marked
• Writing tips contextually relevant
• Completion checklist accurate
• Word count appropriate for venue
• Logical argument flow maintained

Ethical Guidelines

1. Placeholders over fabrication - Always use [YOUR_DATA] instead of making up numbers
2. Honest scaffolding - Structure guides writing, doesn't replace research
3. Clear marking - All placeholders clearly identifiable
4. Academic integrity - Draft is a tool, not a substitute for research

---

Version: 1.0.0 Category: Research / Writing Time: 10-15 minutes for full draft Output: Scaffolded manuscript with placeholders Design: Ethical scaffolding with placeholder-based content

---

Core Principles

1. Scaffolding Over Fabrication

Academic writing tools must never cross the line from assistance to deception. This skill creates structural frameworks that guide authentic research communication.

In practice:

• Generate document outlines with proper academic section hierarchy (Abstract, IMRaD)
• Create writing prompts that help articulate genuine research contributions
• Provide templates that organize thoughts without replacing original thinking
• Use placeholders like [YOUR_DATA] to mark where real content must be inserted
• Flag sections requiring user input with specific guidance on what information belongs

2. Speed Without Sacrifice of Integrity

Rapid drafting should accelerate the mechanical aspects of writing while preserving the essential human elements of research communication - original thought, data interpretation, and scholarly argumentation.

In practice:

• Reduce time on boilerplate structure (paper organization, section transitions)
• Automate citation placeholder insertion ([Author, Year] markers)
• Generate section templates based on venue requirements (page limits, formatting)
• Preserve researcher control over all substantive claims and findings
• Maintain clear separation between auto-generated structure and required user content

3. Transparency in Assistance

Users must always know what is generated versus what requires their expertise. The boundary between tool-assisted and human-created content must be unmistakable.

In practice:

• Mark all generated content with clear indicators ()
• Use distinctive placeholder syntax that cannot be mistaken for real content
• Include metadata showing what sections are complete vs scaffolded
• Generate completion checklists highlighting all areas needing user input
• Provide "generation time" metrics so users understand the tool's contribution

---

Anti-Patterns

Anti-Pattern	Problem	Solution
Fabricating experimental results	Violates research integrity; creates fake data that appears legitimate but has no basis in actual experiments	Use explicit placeholders like [YOUR_RESULT: Mean accuracy = ?] instead of generating plausible-looking numbers. Add warnings that placeholders must be replaced before submission.
Generic template overload	Produces formulaic writing that lacks domain-specific depth; all papers sound identical regardless of field or contribution	Customize templates based on research type (experimental, theoretical, review). Include field-specific writing tips. Generate domain-appropriate example text that researchers can adapt.
Hiding AI contribution	Creates ethical ambiguity about authorship; users may unknowingly submit AI-generated text as their own work	Add metadata footer to drafts: "Generated with rapid-manuscript-drafter v1.0.0". Mark all AI-generated sections. Include ethics statement template about tool use.

---

Conclusion

The rapid-manuscript-drafter skill addresses a critical bottleneck in academic publishing: the time-consuming process of transforming completed research into properly structured manuscripts. By automating the mechanical aspects of academic writing while preserving the essential human elements of scholarship, this skill enables researchers to focus on what matters most - articulating genuine insights and contributions.

The ethical foundation of this skill rests on an unwavering commitment to transparency and integrity. Unlike tools that fabricate plausible-sounding content, rapid-manuscript-drafter creates honest scaffolds that make the writing process more efficient without compromising authenticity. Every placeholder is clearly marked, every template is customizable, and every generated structure serves to guide rather than replace human expertise. This approach respects both the researcher's intellectual contribution and the academic community's standards for scholarly communication.

As research demands accelerate while publication standards remain rigorous, tools that accelerate legitimate scholarship become increasingly valuable. The rapid-manuscript-drafter skill demonstrates that speed and integrity are not opposing forces - when properly designed, automation can enhance both the efficiency and the quality of academic writing. By reducing the friction of manuscript preparation, this skill allows researchers to spend more time on the substance of their work and less time wrestling with formatting, structure, and organization.