--- name: drafting-with-grounded-sources description: >- Use when drafting prose that DEFENDS or DEVELOPS specific claims using cited evidence from the local library — claims the user has stated explicitly, or claims they want help articulating with grounded support. Covers decomposition into grounded propositions, per-claim invocation of the grounding-against-library kernel, and structured output with prose + auditable per-proposition appendix. NOT for topic exploration ("summarize what the literature says about X", "overview of approaches to Y", "tour what these papers cover") — use the using-local-library-mcp orientation skill for those, which produces well-quoted grounded prose without claim-decomposition. Fires on phrasings like "defend the claim that...", "develop the argument that...", "extend this thesis with evidence from...", "make the case that...", "write a paragraph supporting [proposition] using @", "draft a section arguing [position] from @ and @". allowed-tools: - mcp__local-library__search_library - mcp__local-library__show_document - mcp__local-library__list_documents - mcp__local-library__get_document_text - Read --- # Drafting with grounded sources ## When to invoke - Defending a specific claim with paragraph-level evidence from the library - Developing or extending a thesis statement with cited support from one or more sources - Editorial pass on a draft section with flagged unsourced claims - Engaging with a paper's argument by drawing out its specific commitments and supporting them with quotes - Explaining a methodology or finding attributed to a specific paper, where the explanation is itself a defended claim - Building a research note that synthesizes claims from 3 or more sources, where the user has supplied the claims to defend ### When NOT to invoke (use `using-local-library-mcp` instead) - "Give an overview of approaches to X" - "Summarize what the literature says about Y" - "Tour what these sources contain on Z" - "Explain [topic] drawing on @A and @B" (when no specific claim is named) - General exploration where the user wants to *discover* what's in the corpus, not *defend* a position - Literature summaries whose goal is breadth-of-coverage rather than support-for-an-argument The orientation skill produces well-quoted multi-source prose with inline `@citekeys` and chunk references. It does this without requiring claim-decomposition — appropriate when the user has questions, not theses. ## Iron law - **Quote into scratch before paraphrasing.** Cannot quote = not grounded = not citable. - **One proposition, one grounding pass.** "A and B" needs A grounded and B grounded separately. ## Procedure ### Step 1 — Determine input shape and decompose This SKILL drafts prose that **defends specific claims** with cited evidence. The audit-trail appendix earns its keep only when discrete claims anchor the prose. Three input shapes to handle differently: **Shape A — claims supplied** (e.g., "defend the claim that X using @A and @B"; "develop the argument that Y, drawing on @A"; "extend this thesis: [thesis] with evidence from @A"). List the supplied propositions. Each becomes one row in the grounding-summary appendix. Proceed to Step 2. Worked example: "Vaswani et al. 2017 introduced the Transformer architecture, which replaced recurrence with attention and reduced sequential compute" decomposes to: 1. @Vaswani2017 introduced the Transformer architecture. 2. @Vaswani2017's Transformer replaced recurrence with attention. 3. @Vaswani2017 claims this reduces sequential compute. **Shape B — claims implicit, structure is argument-shaped** (e.g., "extend this argument with evidence from the library", "draft a section arguing [position] from these sources", "make the case for X using @A"). The prompt asks for argument-defense but doesn't fully specify the propositions. **Surface 2–4 inferred propositions for user review BEFORE invoking the kernel:** > Your prompt asks me to argue for [implied position] drawing on @A and @B but doesn't fully specify the propositions. Based on the argument structure, I'd decompose into: > > 1. [inferred proposition 1] > 2. [inferred proposition 2] > 3. [inferred proposition 3] > > Confirm, refine, or replace before I ground them. Wait for user response before proceeding. Inferred propositions reflect training-derived priors about the sources, not user intent — surfacing them keeps the user in the authorship loop. **Shape C — topic exploration, no argument structure** (e.g., "give an overview of approaches to X", "summarize what these papers say about Y", "explain [topic] drawing on @A and @B" without a stated claim, "tour the literature on Z"). This SKILL is the wrong tool. Return control with: > This prompt looks like exploration ("[the trigger phrase]") rather than argument-defense. drafting-with-grounded-sources is for the latter; its audit-trail appendix earns its keep only when prose defends discrete claims. Two paths: > > 1. If you have specific claims in mind, supply them (1–3 propositions) and I'll ground them via this SKILL. > 2. If you want a tour of what these sources contain on the topic, the `using-local-library-mcp` orientation skill produces well-quoted multi-source prose without requiring claim-decomposition. > > Which do you want? Wait for user response. Do not silently treat exploration as argument-defense — that produces a paragraph grounded against propositions you invented from training memory, with hidden authorship. ### Step 2 — Ground each proposition Per proposition: invoke `grounding-against-library` (six-step procedure). Capture per-source quoted evidence into a scratch buffer. If the kernel returns not-found for a proposition: drop it OR rewrite to match what the corpus supports. Do not paraphrase past not-found. ### Step 3 — Write the prose Draft from the scratch buffer. Inline `@citekeys` at every claim. Paraphrase from quoted excerpts, never from memory. ### Step 4 — Build the grounding-summary appendix At the end of the draft: ``` ## Grounding summary - Proposition 1: - Source: @Citekey1 (Chunk N) - Quote: "..." - Status: support - Proposition 2: - Source: @Citekey2 (Chunk M) - Quote: "..." - Status: partial — caveat noted in prose ``` The appendix scales with draft size. For long drafts, invoke section-by-section to keep the appendix manageable. ## Output format - Draft prose with inline `@citekeys` at every claim - Grounding-summary appendix at end (one entry per proposition, with source citekey, chunk index, quoted excerpt, status) ## Failure-mode table | Excuse | Reality | |--------|---------| | "I'll cite this from memory; the paper definitely says it" | Memory is where false grounding enters. Quote first; cite from quote. | | "Top result was thematically related; that's enough to cite" | Citation-shopping. The chunk must support the *specific* claim. | | "`mentions` / `discusses` / `argues` mean the same thing" | They don't. Match the verb to the quote. | | "I'll add the citekey at the end and figure out the chunk later" | Citations decay. Capture the chunk index when you capture the quote. | | "This proposition's a connector — it doesn't need grounding" | Connectors quietly assert relationships. Ground them or mark as synthesis. | | "The user gave me a topic and citekeys, so I'll synthesize a paragraph from those sources" | If the prompt is exploration (overview / summary / tour) rather than argument-defense, this SKILL is the wrong tool. Redirect to `using-local-library-mcp`. The audit-trail appendix earns its keep only when prose defends discrete claims. | | "The user gave me an argument-shaped prompt without claims; I'll just decompose into propositions I expect the papers to make" | Inferred propositions reflect training-derived priors about the sources, not user intent. Surface them for review before grounding so the user can confirm or refine. | ## Red flags — stop - About to add inline citekey without a corresponding grounding-summary entry - About to skip decomposition because the section "is short" - About to keep a not-found proposition by fudging the wording - About to consolidate two propositions into one citation - About to draft prose before the scratch buffer is populated - About to draft an "overview of [topic]" or "summary of approaches to [X]" using this SKILL — that's exploration, not argument-defense; redirect to `using-local-library-mcp` - About to invoke the kernel on propositions you generated from memory of the paper, without first asking the user to confirm or refine them on a topic-only or implicit-claims prompt