Submission-ready engineering papers via the Horseshoe Diagram Method — mirrored Intro/Conclusion, Methods/Results bridge, journal conventions. Triggers: horseshoe paper, journal paper draft.
Scanned 9/20/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add darellchua2/opencode-config-template --skill horseshoe-paper-writing-skill --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Horseshoe Paper Writing Skill?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/darellchua2-horseshoe-paper-writing-skill)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: horseshoe-paper-writing-skill
description: "Submission-ready engineering papers via the Horseshoe Diagram Method — mirrored Intro/Conclusion, Methods/Results bridge, journal conventions. Triggers: horseshoe paper, journal paper draft."
license: Apache-2.0
compatibility: opencode
category: Academic & Research Writing
---
## What I do
Write submission-ready engineering papers via the **Horseshoe Diagram Method**: a paper is an inverted-U whose two open arms (Introduction, Conclusion) must mirror each other, joined by the evidence bridge (Methods → Results → Discussion).
## When to use me
"horseshoe paper", "journal paper draft" — any engineering/ML journal submission draft, revision, or review under this method.
## 1. The method (core)
Left arm (Intro) funnels INWARD: broad context → specific problem → literature gap → contributions/RQs. Bridge is the ONLY evidence: Methods, Results, Discussion. Right arm (Conclusion) flares OUTWARD: findings → implications → limitations → future work → broader context.
**The Mirror Principle (the one rule):** every claim/question/contribution in the Introduction MUST have a mirrored partner in the Conclusion — no new content in the Conclusion, only answers to Intro promises. Contributions answered in the SAME ORDER; RQ1..RQn answered in order. A reviewer must be able to fold the paper along the bridge and have each intro paragraph line up with its conclusion partner. (vs "hourglass": the horseshoe makes intro/conclusion drift visible and fixable.)
## 2. The seven-step workflow
1. Draft the LEFT ARM (promises, contributions, RQs) → 2. Draft the RIGHT ARM (answers, point-by-point mirror) → 3. Build the PAIRING TABLE (intro ¶ ↔ conclusion ¶) → 4. Draft the BRIDGE to connect each pair → 5. Abstract (compress the whole horseshoe, ~250 words) → 6. Front/back-matter (Practical Applications/Highlights, Data Availability, Author Contributions, Acknowledgments) → 7. MIRROR AUDIT.
**Never write the bridge first** — the arms define the contract; the bridge fulfills it.
## 3. Journal-submission section order (stable across ASCE/Elsevier/IEEE/Springer/MDPI; names vary by venue)
Abstract → Introduction → (Literature Review) → Methods → Results → Discussion → Conclusions → Practical Applications/Highlights (venue-dependent) → back-matter. Methods before Results; Discussion separate from Results unless venue merges them.
## 4. Mirror audit (mandatory before done)
Two-column pairing table (`section-templates/pairing-table.md`): Intro element ↔ Conclusion partner ↔ Bridge evidence § ↔ ✓. Rules: (1) every numbered contribution has a Conclusion partner — add one or delete the contribution; (2) no orphan RQs; (3) NO new content in Conclusion (new claim/dataset/citation = violation — move to bridge); (4) Abstract mentions every contribution; (5) Practical Applications cites the single best headline number. Run before submission, after EVERY revision, and during review-response (new analysis → bridge AND the relevant arm).
## 5. Evidence rules (condensed)
ML results report per-class metrics (precision/recall/F1), never accuracy-only. Implications quantify ("reduces X by 17%") or are cut. Limitations subsection always present. Generalization hedged to demonstrated scope.
## 6. Anti-patterns to reject (review checklist)
Methods-first writing · unmirrored contributions · orphan RQs · new content in Conclusion · missing Practical Applications/Highlights when required · accuracy-only reporting · no limitations subsection · vague implications · overstated generalization.
**Related:** `research-paper-generation-skill` (generation pipeline from codebases) · `docx-creation-skill` (DOCX conversion) · `mermaid-diagram-creator-skill`.
> Removed 2026-09: the §3 section-by-section writing guide (per-section prose templates), §4 multi-venue reference-style catalogs, §6 diagramming conventions detail, §7 formula/equation typography rules, §8 table formatting walkthroughs, §9 folder layout, §13 example invocation transcript, ASCII reference figure — venue-specific mechanics the model knows; the method, workflow, audit, and anti-patterns above are the durable contract.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!