Skip to content
Back to skills

Narrative Framing

ASecurity

Use when starting any research task to establish WHO, STAKES, and STORY. Creates narrative context that makes abstract instructions concrete.

  • 7 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 0 views
  • Added May 26, 2026
ai-agentsgotesting

Security analysis

A100/100

Scanned May 27, 2026

npx -y skills add rhowardstone/Claude-Code-Scientist --skill narrative-framing --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Narrative Framing?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Narrative Framing
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/rhowardstone-narrative-framing/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/rhowardstone-narrative-framing)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: narrative-framing
description: Use when starting any research task to establish WHO, STAKES, and STORY. Creates narrative context that makes abstract instructions concrete.
---

# Narrative Framing Skill

**Abstract instructions produce abstract outputs.** This skill establishes the human context that makes research real.

## When to Use

- At the START of any research task, BEFORE decomposing into RQs
- When research feels aimless or unfocused
- When outputs are technically correct but feel hollow
- Before synthesis to remember WHY this matters

## The Three Questions

Before any research work, explicitly answer:

### 1. WHO is this for?

Not "the scientific community" - be specific:

- "A graduate student trying to decide which doublet detector to use for their PBMC data"
- "A drug discovery team evaluating whether to add ambient correction to their pipeline"
- "A methods developer looking for gaps in the literature to address"
- "Gulnaz, who asked this specific question"

**Even if hypothetical, name them.** The name creates accountability.

### 2. What are the STAKES?

What happens if this research is wrong or incomplete?

- "They waste 2 weeks on a tool that doesn't work for their data"
- "They miss a key preprocessing step and publish incorrect cell types"
- "They solve a problem that's already been solved"
- "They miss the deadline for the grant application"

**Make the consequences concrete.** Abstract stakes produce abstract work.

### 3. What STORY are we telling?

Research is narrative. What's the arc?

- "Methods X and Y claim to solve problem P. We test them head-to-head and find X wins, but only under conditions C."
- "The field assumes A→B ordering doesn't matter. We show it does, with quantified impact."
- "Everyone uses method M. We find it fails catastrophically on data type D."

**The story shapes what's important.** Without it, everything seems equally relevant.

## Example Framing

**Research Goal:** "Benchmark doublet detection methods"

**Before Narrative Framing:**
- Just list tools and metrics
- Report numbers without interpretation
- No clear recommendation

**After Narrative Framing:**

**WHO:** "Maya, a postdoc running her first large scRNA-seq experiment (50K cells, 10 samples multiplexed with HTOs). She needs to choose a doublet detector TODAY because the deadline is Friday."

**STAKES:** "If she picks the wrong tool:
- False positives: She loses rare cell types she spent months trying to capture
- False negatives: Doublets contaminate her trajectory analysis, invalidating her main result
- Wrong threshold: She either over-filters (loses data) or under-filters (keeps artifacts)"

**STORY:** "Maya has heard Scrublet is 'standard' but Solo is 'better'. We test both on data LIKE hers and discover: Scrublet is conservative (won't hurt you but misses doublets), Solo is aggressive (catches more but kills some real cells). The RIGHT choice depends on what Maya fears more - and we'll tell her which based on HER priorities."

**Result:** The same benchmark, but now every figure has PURPOSE. The discussion isn't "here are numbers" but "here's what Maya should do."

## Integration with Research Director

When spawning Goal Decomposition, include:

```
## Narrative Context

**Who:** [Name and situation]
**Stakes:** [What happens if we get this wrong]
**Story:** [The arc we're following]

Now decompose this research goal into 3-8 research questions...
```

## Checklist

Before starting research:
- [ ] Named the person this is for (even if fictional)
- [ ] Articulated concrete negative consequences
- [ ] Wrote a one-sentence story arc
- [ ] Framing documented in $SESSION_DIR/world_model.json

## Why This Works

The Local Craig session that produced rigorous results was working "for" a specific context. The K-Dense session that produced beautiful outputs was working for "K-Dense Web" as a brand. My pipeline test that had a citation error? Just "testing the pipeline."

**The narrative is the discipline.**

When you're writing for Maya who needs results by Friday, you double-check the DOI. When you're "just running a benchmark," you don't.

## Anti-Pattern: Skipping Framing

"I don't have time for narrative framing, let me just run the analysis."

This is exactly when you NEED it. The 2 minutes spent on framing saves hours of aimless exploration and produces outputs with actual recommendations instead of "results vary."

**Embody the role. The narrative matters.**

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…

Newsletter

Get the weekly list of safe new skills, and the ones we pulled.