Research Intro Builder

1. Read the local workspace guidance if one exists.
2. Read the two core files above.
3. Diagnose whether the main problem is:
   • weak opening
   • weak puzzle
   • weak introduction structure
   • weak contribution preview
4. Read only the extra playbooks needed for that diagnosis.
5. Produce revised prose, not just commentary, unless the user explicitly asks for diagnosis only.

Standard Input Template

If the request is underspecified, normalize it using:

• ./references/standard-input-template.md

Infer missing fields when reasonable, but state the assumptions if they materially affect the rewrite.

Typical Outputs

• A new first paragraph
• A rewritten full introduction
• A paragraph-by-paragraph introduction outline
• A diagnosis of why the current introduction feels weak
• A stronger "what do we know / do not know / so what" sequence
• A sharper "what will we learn" contribution preview

Operating Heuristics

• Keep the opening concrete and specific.
• Make the introduction function as a stand-alone mini-summary.
• State the research question clearly rather than only naming a broad topic.
• Preview the contribution in a calibrated way; do not overclaim.
• If the problem is really a literature or puzzle problem, fix that first rather than polishing sentences.

Avoid

• Starting with broad, generic background that could fit any paper
• Treating "there is a gap" as sufficient motivation
• Letting the opening story drift away from the research question
• Using the introduction to summarize chapter order instead of making the case
• Promising a contribution that the paper does not actually deliver