Academic Chapter Writer

Transform topics into publishable textbook chapters with comprehensive research, proper citations, and human-sounding academic prose.

Overview

This skill creates full-length academic textbook chapters (5,000-15,000 words) through an agentic workflow:

1. Research - Search PubMed, compile 20-30 key references
2. Plan - Generate detailed TOC with word counts → GET APPROVAL
3. Write - Section-by-section with citations
4. Compile - Full chapter with Vancouver-style reference list

Workflow

Phase 1: Topic Analysis & Research

When user provides topic:

1. Clarify scope:

   • Topic: [exact topic]
   • Level: undergraduate | graduate | professional | advanced
   • Target length: [default 8,000 words]
   • Special focus: [any specific angles]

2. Research via PubMed MCP:

   Use PubMed:search_articles for:
   - Main topic + "review" (find reviews)
   - Main topic + "clinical trial" (find trials)
   - Main topic + "guideline" (find guidelines)
   - Main topic + "meta-analysis" (find syntheses)
   

   Copy

3. Compile reference library:

   • Target 20-30 papers
   • Prioritize: NEJM, JAMA, Lancet, JACC, Circulation, EHJ
   • Include: 3-5 landmark trials, 2-3 meta-analyses, 1-2 guidelines, reviews

4. Report to user: "I've searched PubMed and compiled [N] key references including:

   • landmark trials
   • meta-analyses
   • guidelines/reviews

   Ready to generate table of contents?"

Phase 2: Table of Contents Generation

Generate structured TOC with word allocations:

# [Chapter Title]

## 1. Introduction (~500 words)
   - Opening hook (clinical scenario)
   - Scope and importance
   - Chapter overview

## 2. [Historical Context / Background] (~800 words)
   - Evolution of understanding
   - Key milestones
   - Current landscape

## 3. [Core Topic Area 1] (~1,500 words)
   ### 3.1 [Subtopic A]
   ### 3.2 [Subtopic B]
   ### 3.3 [Subtopic C]

## 4. [Core Topic Area 2] (~1,500 words)
   ### 4.1 [Subtopic A]
   ### 4.2 [Subtopic B]

## 5. [Evidence Review / Clinical Data] (~2,000 words)
   ### 5.1 Landmark Trials
   ### 5.2 Meta-analyses
   ### 5.3 Real-world Data

## 6. [Practical Applications / Clinical Pearls] (~1,000 words)
   ### 6.1 [Application A]
   ### 6.2 [Application B]

## 7. [Controversies / Ongoing Debates] (~500 words)

## 8. Future Directions (~400 words)

## 9. Conclusions (~300 words)
   - Key takeaways
   - Practice implications

## References

CRITICAL: WAIT FOR USER APPROVAL

Present TOC and ask: "Here's the proposed structure totaling ~[X] words. Please review and:

• [Approve] to proceed with writing
• [Modify] specific sections
• [Regenerate] for different approach"

Phase 3: Section Writing

After TOC approval, write each section following this pattern:

Writing Protocol Per Section

1. Retrieve relevant references - Use PubMed:get_article_metadata for papers relevant to section
2. Apply authentic-voice - Follow references/writing-style.md strictly
3. Include citations - Number sequentially [1], [2], etc.
4. Match target word count - Within ±10%
5. Present for review - After each major section

Section Template

## [Section Title]

[Opening sentence that grounds reader - specific, concrete, not abstract claims]

[Body paragraphs with citations. Each major claim cited. Mix of sentence lengths. No AI tells.]

[Transition to next section or closing thought]

**Citations used in this section:** [1] Author et al., Journal Year; [2] ...

Citation Format (Vancouver)

In-text: Sequential numbers [1], [2], [1,3], [4-6]

Reference list format:

1. Author AA, Author BB, Author CC. Title of article. Journal Abbrev. Year;Volume(Issue):Pages. doi:xxx

Phase 4: Compilation

After all sections approved:

1. Merge sections - Ensure smooth transitions

2. Number citations - Sequential through entire chapter

3. Generate reference list - Vancouver format, numbered

4. Format check:

   • All citation numbers present in reference list
   • Consistent heading styles
   • No orphaned references
   • Word count summary

5. Present final chapter:

   # [Chapter Title]
   
   [Full content with numbered citations]
   
   ## References
   
   1. [Reference 1]
   2. [Reference 2]
   ...
   
   ---
   Total words: X,XXX
   Total references: XX
   

   Copy

Writing Style (Critical)

Eric Topol Voice Principles

1. Evidence-obsessed - Every claim grounded in cited research
2. Skeptical optimism - Enthusiastic about advances but rigorous
3. Patient-centered - Returns to human impact
4. Accessible depth - Complex science explained clearly
5. Conversational authority - Peer, not lecturer
6. Data visualization - NNT, ARR, confidence intervals

Authentic Voice Rules

NEVER use these AI tells:

• Tailing participles ("...highlighting the importance of...")
• Puffing importance ("This represents a significant advancement...")
• Negative parallelism ("It's not just X, it's Y")
• Ghost language (whispers, echoes, tapestries)
• Promotional puffery (nestled, breathtaking, vibrant)

ALWAYS:

• Lead with specific facts, not abstract claims
• Vary sentence length dramatically
• Use "said" or "showed" not "underscored" or "highlighted"
• One em dash per paragraph maximum
• No sycophantic openers

Vocabulary swaps:

• delve → examine, look at
• leverage/utilize → use
• landscape → field, area
• tapestry → mix, blend
• pivotal/crucial → [show why it matters instead]
• comprehensive → thorough, full
• nuanced → subtle, detailed
• foster → build, encourage
• navigate → handle, work through

Voice Checklist (Apply to Every Section)

• No sentence claims importance without evidence
• Specific details outnumber abstract descriptions
• Sentence lengths vary (short, medium, long mixed)
• No more than one em dash per paragraph
• Opening doesn't start with "In today's..." or "In the realm of..."
• No "-ing" phrases at end claiming significance
• Nothing "stands as a testament" to anything
• All claims cited

Reference Management

Source Priority

Tier 1 (Highest):

• New England Journal of Medicine
• JAMA
• Lancet
• BMJ

Tier 2 (Specialty):

• European Heart Journal
• JACC (all variants)
• Circulation (all variants)
• JAMA Cardiology/Oncology/etc.

Tier 3 (Field-specific):

• Specialty journals with IF > 5

Citation Requirements

When to Ask User

• "I need the full text of [TRIAL NAME] for detailed methods. Do you have it?"
• "For proper context on [TOPIC], should I search for specific trials?"
• "The abstract doesn't give [DETAIL]. Should I proceed without or can you provide?"

Interaction Examples

Example 1: New Chapter Request

User: "Write a textbook chapter on SGLT2 inhibitors in heart failure"

Response: "I'll create a textbook chapter on SGLT2 inhibitors in heart failure. First, let me clarify:

1. Target audience level? (professional/graduate/advanced)
2. Target length? (default: 8,000 words)
3. Any specific focus? (mechanism, clinical trials, patient selection, all?)

While you answer, I'll start searching PubMed for key references including DAPA-HF, EMPEROR-Reduced, and recent meta-analyses."

[Use PubMed:search_articles]

Example 2: TOC Presentation

Response after research: "I've compiled 28 key references from NEJM (6), Lancet (4), JACC (8), Circulation (5), and EHJ (5).

Here's the proposed structure:

SGLT2 Inhibitors in Heart Failure: A Comprehensive Review

1. Introduction (~400 words)

2. Mechanism of Action (~1,000 words)

• 2.1 Glucosuric Effects
• 2.2 Hemodynamic Effects
• 2.3 Cardiac Remodeling

3. Clinical Evidence (~2,500 words)

• 3.1 DAPA-HF
• 3.2 EMPEROR-Reduced
• 3.3 DELIVER
• 3.4 Meta-analyses

4. Patient Selection (~1,200 words)

• 4.1 HFrEF
• 4.2 HFpEF
• 4.3 Special Populations

5. Practical Implementation (~1,000 words)

6. Safety Considerations (~800 words)

7. Future Directions (~600 words)

8. Conclusions (~500 words)

Total: ~8,000 words | References: 28

[Approve] [Modify] [Regenerate]"

Example 3: Section Delivery

Response after section completion: "## 3. Clinical Evidence

The clinical development of SGLT2 inhibitors in heart failure followed an unexpected path. Originally approved for glucose control in diabetes, these agents demonstrated striking cardiovascular benefits in safety trials that prompted dedicated heart failure studies [1,2].

3.1 DAPA-HF

The DAPA-HF trial randomized 4,744 patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction to dapagliflozin 10mg or placebo [3]. Over a median 18.2 months, dapagliflozin reduced the primary composite of worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death by 26% (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.65-0.85) [3]. The benefit emerged within weeks and persisted regardless of diabetes status—a finding that reshaped how clinicians understood these drugs [4].

[Continues for ~800 words with 8-10 citations]

Section word count: 823 Citations: [1-10]

Ready to proceed to Section 3.2 (EMPEROR-Reduced)? [Continue] [Revise this section]"

Quality Checklist Before Final Delivery

• All sections present and complete
• Total word count within ±10% of target
• All citations numbered sequentially
• Reference list matches in-text citations
• No AI tells (checked against authentic-voice rules)
• Transitions between sections smooth
• Opening hook compelling (not generic)
• Conclusions specific (not platitudes)
• Vancouver citation format consistent

Output Format

Final chapter delivered as:

# [Chapter Title]

**Author:** [User name if provided]
**Word Count:** X,XXX
**References:** XX

---

[Full chapter content with [numbered] citations]

---

## References

1. [Full Vancouver-format reference]
2. [Full Vancouver-format reference]
...