Report Writing Flow
Researcher Official v1.1.27Outline, draft sections, peer review, and format
by skrptiq
Sign in to import this skrpt into your workspace.
Sign inWhat's included 4 nodes
Report Writing Flow
Outline, draft sections, peer review, and format
Report Intake
Collects the report topic, questions, methodology, and draft into a single structured brief
Report Brief
Collects the research topic, questions, methodology, and draft for the report
Analysis Framework — Thematic Coding
Template for qualitative thematic analysis
Requirements 1 service, 3 permissions, 1 data type
- LLM Service
- network:doi.org
- network:www.who.int
- network:www.ons.gov.uk
- pii
Security Passed
Detected
- Services: llm-service
- Permissions:
- Data Handling:
Version history 18 releases
GH#814 — rework so the workflow actually **generates a report** instead of reviewing the input (the intent-vs-output defect Ben found). Rewires execution to a GENERATE pipeline: report-brief (intake) → outline-report → draft-report → polish-report (output) ∥ check-evidence-claims (advisory). Drops `data-interpretation`/`interpret-data` (the analysis step that made the output a critique) and swaps generic `polish-language` for report-appropriate `polish-report`. Pins 3 new shared generation blocks (`report-authoring`, `outline-report`, `draft-report` @ 1.0.0) and coherent-locks all deps to current published versions (1.0.2). Realigns the description/`## Pipeline Stages`/outputs to the real pipeline. Folds #816: `completed_draft_or_near` → `type: file` (accept .txt,.md,.docx,.pdf) bound via `from_input` so the optional input degrades to empty instead of hard-failing when omitted. en-US copy.
GH#776 — fix advertised inputs reaching nothing (K-034). The four advertised inputs (`research_topic`, `research_questions`, `methodology`, `completed_draft_or_near`) were declared and bound nowhere, so every step ran on empty context. Adds a local `report-intake` skill + `report-brief` prompt that declares and collects the four inputs into a structured brief, which flows into the interpretation step via `{{steps.previous.output}}`; binds the previously-unbound `polish-language.source` to the interpretation via `from_step`. No shared-prompt edits. en-US copy. Also repins the `polish-language` dep v1.0.1 → v1.0.5 (same lineage `9b1771e0`), the version whose body declares `context_params.source` / references `{{step.context.source}}` — required for the new `source` binding to resolve (the stale v1.0.1 pin blocked the canonical publish scan).
GH#745 — declare per-step `output: {name, type}` on every execution step (interpretation/text, evidence_report/text, polished_report/text). Lights up the #744 rich flow-map. Content-only; no bindings or logic changes.
GH#645 Row 3b — migrate to K-037 dep-referenced schema. Strip 9 inline shared-content files and declare 9 hub-shared deps (UUID id + slug name + version + checksum from `gen-dep-checksums.mjs`). Closes pre-Step-3 inline-vendoring for this bundle.
Wave 2: re-signed with canonical engine signing pipeline.
Signature fix — RELEASE_NOTES.md now included in integrity checksum.
Initial catalogue release with full structural and content-quality validation. All scanner checks pass.
Release notes unavailable for this version.
Release notes unavailable for this version.
Release notes unavailable for this version.
Release notes unavailable for this version.
Release notes unavailable for this version.
Release notes unavailable for this version.
Release notes unavailable for this version.
Release notes unavailable for this version.
Release notes unavailable for this version.
Release notes unavailable for this version.
Release notes unavailable for this version.
More from Researcher
View all →Systematic Review Pipeline
Systematic literature review following PRISMA methodology — search strategy, screening, extraction, and synthesis
Research Proposal Flow
Gap analysis, hypothesis generation, methodology design, and proposal drafting
Peer Review Preparation Flow
Preparing manuscripts for peer review submission — formatting, self-review, and response to reviewers