Define the sections of the document. Each section is a coherent chunk of writing that delivers part of the argument. The outline provides structure, not detailed prose. **Read these files NOW:** 1. ~/.claude/write-the-f-paper/templates/roadmap.md 2. ~/.claude/write-the-f-paper/templates/state.md 3. Read `.planning/PROJECT.md` if it exists ```bash cat .planning/PROJECT.md 2>/dev/null || echo "No brief found" ``` **If no brief exists:** Ask: "No project brief found. Want to create one first, or proceed with outline?" If proceeding without brief, gather quick context: - What type of document? (journal paper, conference paper, grant proposal) - What's the core argument/thesis? - Target venue and constraints (page limit, format)? Infer document type from the brief/user request: | Keywords | Document Type | Section Template | | -------- | ------------- | ---------------- | | "journal", "paper", "article", "manuscript" | IMRaD Paper | intro, methods, results, discussion | | "conference", "short paper", "workshop" | Conference Paper | intro, background, approach, evaluation, conclusion | | "grant", "proposal", "NSF", "NIH", "funding" | Grant Proposal | aims, significance, innovation, approach, timeline | | "thesis", "dissertation", "chapter" | Thesis Chapter | varies by field | | "review", "survey", "literature review" | Review Paper | intro, methodology, findings, synthesis | **Present detection:** ``` Detected: [document type] → [section template] Use this structure? (Y / customize / show options) ``` **If multiple types apply:** ``` Detected multiple possible types: - IMRaD Paper (research focus) - Conference Paper (shorter format) Select type (or describe): ``` **Store selected template** for section generation. Derive sections from the document type and content needs. **Check depth setting:** ```bash cat .planning/config.json 2>/dev/null | grep depth ``` **Depth controls granularity, not artificial inflation.** | Depth | Typical Sections | Typical Plans/Section | Writing Tasks/Plan | |-------|-----------------|----------------------|-------------------| | Quick | 4-6 | 1-2 | 2-3 | | Standard | 6-10 | 2-4 | 2-3 | | Comprehensive | 8-15 | 3-6 | 2-3 | **Key principle:** Derive sections from document requirements. Depth determines how you break down complex sections, not a target to hit. - Comprehensive Methods section = 4 plans (because methods genuinely has 4 subsections) - Comprehensive Abstract = 1 plan (because that's all it is) For comprehensive depth: - Don't compress multiple arguments into single sections - Each major contribution gets proper space - Let small sections stay small—don't pad to hit a number For quick depth: - Combine related content aggressively - Focus on critical argument path - Defer nice-to-haves to revision phases **Section Numbering System:** Use integer sections (1, 2, 3) for planned document structure. Use decimal sections (2.1, 2.2) for urgent insertions: - Decimal sections inserted between integers - Mark with "(INSERTED)" in section title - Created when critical content discovered after planning - Examples: addressing reviewer comments, adding missing analysis **Deriving sections:** 1. List all required sections for document type 2. Group related arguments into coherent sections 3. Each section should deliver ONE complete part of the argument 4. If a section covers unrelated points: split it 5. If a section can't stand alone as a unit: merge it 6. Order by logical flow (setup → method → findings → meaning) Good sections are: - **Coherent**: Each delivers one complete argumentative unit - **Sequential**: Later sections build on earlier - **Self-contained**: Can be verified and understood on its own Common section patterns by document type: **IMRaD Paper:** - Abstract → Introduction → Methods → Results → Discussion → Conclusion **Conference Paper:** - Abstract → Introduction → Background → Approach → Evaluation → Discussion → Conclusion **Grant Proposal:** - Specific Aims → Significance → Innovation → Approach → Timeline → Budget **For each section, determine if literature research is likely needed.** Scan the brief and section descriptions for research triggers: **Likely (flag the section):** | Trigger Pattern | Why Research Needed | | --------------- | ------------------- | | "literature review", "related work", "background" | Core purpose is citing prior work | | "compare to", "differs from", "unlike" | Need to accurately represent prior work | | "builds on", "extends", "improves" | Need to understand what's being extended | | "controversial", "debated", "contested" | Need to represent multiple perspectives | | "recent advances", "state of the art", "current" | Need up-to-date literature | | "methodology borrowed from" | Need to cite and accurately describe | | Any claim requiring external evidence | Need sources to support | **Unlikely (no flag needed):** | Pattern | Why No Research | | ------- | --------------- | | "describe our method", "our approach" | Reporting own work | | "results show", "we found" | Presenting own findings | | "data collected", "analysis performed" | Describing own process | | "limitations of our study" | Self-reflection on own work | **For each section, assign:** - `Research: Likely ([reason])` + `Research topics: [what to investigate]` - `Research: Unlikely ([reason])` Present research assessment: ``` Research needs detected: Section 1: Introduction Research: Likely (establishing gap requires citing prior work) Topics: Prior approaches to [problem], their limitations Section 2: Methods Research: Unlikely (describing own methodology) Section 3: Related Work Research: Likely (core purpose) Topics: [theme 1], [theme 2], contrasting approaches Section 4: Results Research: Unlikely (presenting own findings) Section 5: Discussion Research: Likely (interpreting findings in context of literature) Topics: How findings relate to prior work Does this look right? (yes / adjust) ``` ```bash cat .planning/config.json 2>/dev/null ``` Note: Config may not exist yet (project initialization). If missing, default to interactive mode. ``` Auto-approved: Section breakdown ([N] sections) 1. [Section name] - [goal] 2. [Section name] - [goal] 3. [Section name] - [goal] Proceeding to research detection... ``` Proceed directly to detect_research_needs step. Present the section breakdown inline: "Here's how I'd structure this document: 1. [Section name] - [goal] 2. [Section name] - [goal] 3. [Section name] - [goal] ... Does this feel right? (yes / adjust)" If "adjust": Ask what to change, revise, present again. ``` Auto-approved: Create outline with [N] sections Proceeding to create .planning/ROADMAP.md... ``` Proceed directly to create_structure step. Use AskUserQuestion: - header: "Ready" - question: "Ready to create the document outline, or would you like me to ask more questions?" - options: - "Create outline" - I have enough context - "Ask more questions" - There are details to clarify - "Let me add context" - I want to provide more information Loop until "Create outline" selected. ```bash mkdir -p .planning/sections ``` Use template from `~/.claude/write-the-f-paper/templates/roadmap.md`. Initial outlines use integer sections (1, 2, 3...). Decimal sections added later via /wtfp:insert-section command. Write to `.planning/ROADMAP.md` with: - Document Type section (IMRaD, Grant, etc.) - Section list with names and one-line goals - Word budget per section - Dependencies (what must complete before what) - **Research flags** (from detect_research_needs step): - `Research: Likely ([reason])` with `Research topics:` for flagged sections - `Research: Unlikely ([reason])` for unflagged sections - Status tracking (all start as "not started") Create section directories: ```bash mkdir -p .planning/sections/01-{section-name} mkdir -p .planning/sections/02-{section-name} # etc. ``` Create STATE.md — the project's living memory. Use template from `~/.claude/write-the-f-paper/templates/state.md`. Write to `.planning/STATE.md`: ```markdown # Project State ## Project Reference See: .planning/PROJECT.md (updated [today's date]) **Core argument:** [Copy thesis/core claim from PROJECT.md] **Current focus:** Section 1 — [First section name] ## Current Position Section: 1 of [N] ([First section name]) Plan: Not started Status: Ready to plan Last activity: [today's date] — Document initialized Progress: ░░░░░░░░░░ 0% ## Word Count Target: [total target] words Current: 0 words Remaining: [total target] words ## Section Progress | Section | Status | Words | Target | Strength | |---------|--------|-------|--------|----------| | 1. [Name] | - | 0 | [target] | - | | 2. [Name] | - | 0 | [target] | - | ## Argument Strength Core claim: developing Evidence gaps: [initial assessment] Logic flow: not yet established ## Open Questions (None yet) ## Deferred (None yet) ## Session Continuity Last session: [today's date and time] Stopped at: Document initialization complete Resume file: None ``` **Key points:** - Project Reference points to PROJECT.md for full context - Claude reads PROJECT.md directly for thesis, constraints, decisions - This file will be read first in every future operation - This file will be updated after every writing session Create the three structure layers for the document: **argument-map.md** - Logical structure of the argument ```bash mkdir -p .planning/structure ``` Use template from `~/.claude/write-the-f-paper/templates/project-context/argument-structure.md` Write initial skeleton based on thesis and sections identified. **outline.md** - Section skeleton with word budgets Already created as ROADMAP.md, but create detailed outline.md if needed. **narrative-arc.md** - Story structure Create using narrative-arc.md template from project-context/. Commit project initialization (brief + roadmap + state together): ```bash git add .planning/PROJECT.md .planning/ROADMAP.md .planning/STATE.md git add .planning/sections/ git add .planning/structure/ # config.json if exists git add .planning/config.json 2>/dev/null git commit -m "$(cat <<'EOF' docs: initialize [document-title] ([N] sections) [One-liner thesis/purpose from PROJECT.md] Sections: 1. [section-name]: [goal] 2. [section-name]: [goal] 3. [section-name]: [goal] EOF )" ``` Confirm: "Committed: docs: initialize [document] ([N] sections)" ``` Document initialized: - Brief: .planning/PROJECT.md - Outline: .planning/ROADMAP.md - State: .planning/STATE.md - Structure: .planning/structure/ - Committed as: docs: initialize [document] ([N] sections) --- ## Next Up **Section 1: [Name]** — [Goal from ROADMAP.md] `/wtfp:plan-section 1` `/clear` first → fresh context window --- **Also available:** - `/wtfp:discuss-section 1` — gather context first - `/wtfp:research-gap [topic]` — investigate literature - Review outline --- ``` Use `XX-kebab-case-name` format: - `01-abstract` - `02-introduction` - `03-methods` - `04-results` - `05-discussion` Numbers ensure ordering. Names describe content. - Don't add time estimates - Don't create Gantt charts - Don't add word count goals per day - Don't include revision matrices upfront - Don't impose arbitrary section counts (let the document type determine the count) Sections are structural units of the argument, not project management artifacts. Outline is complete when: - [ ] `.planning/ROADMAP.md` exists - [ ] `.planning/STATE.md` exists (project memory initialized) - [ ] `.planning/structure/` exists with argument-map.md, narrative-arc.md - [ ] Sections defined with clear goals (count derived from document type, not imposed) - [ ] **Research flags assigned** (Likely/Unlikely for each section) - [ ] **Research topics listed** for Likely sections - [ ] Word budgets assigned per section - [ ] Section directories created - [ ] Dependencies noted if any - [ ] Status tracking in place