---
name: thesis-outline
description: "Build a defensible thesis or dissertation outline — argument-first structure, chapter by chapter, with the through-line visible. Use when asked to outline my thesis, structure my dissertation, plan my capstone, or organize my research into chapters. Produces a full outline: the one-sentence thesis, chapter map with each chapter's job and claim, evidence allocation, and the risk register of weak links an examiner would probe."
homepage: https://mohitagw15856.github.io/pm-claude-skills/skill/thesis-outline.html
metadata:
  {
    "openclaw": { "emoji": "🧠" }
  }
---

# Thesis Outline Skill

A thesis dies two ways: chapters that are containers instead of arguments, and a through-line only the author can see. This skill builds the outline argument-first — every chapter has a *job* and a *claim* — and then reads it like an examiner, flagging the weak links before the defense does.

## What This Skill Produces

- **The thesis sentence** — one sentence; if it takes three, the work isn't scoped yet
- **The chapter map** — per chapter: its job in the argument, its central claim, its evidence
- **Evidence allocation** — which data/sources carry which chapter, exposing overloaded and starving chapters
- **The examiner's risk register** — the 3–5 weakest links, each with a shoring-up plan

## Required Inputs

Ask for these if not provided:
- **The research question and (draft) answer** — even rough; the outline is built around the answer
- **What exists already** — data collected, chapters drafted, the literature review's gap statement
- **Program constraints** — length, chapter conventions of the field, deadline
- **The supervisor's known opinions** (optional but valuable — outlines that fight the supervisor lose slowly)

## Framework

1. **Answer-first:** the outline is the argument for the thesis sentence; chapters exist to carry parts of that argument. "Chapter 4: Findings" is a container; "Chapter 4: the survey data shows X, which establishes premise 2" is a chapter.
2. **The through-line test:** the final paragraph of each chapter should hand off to the next ("having shown X, the question becomes Y"). Write those handoffs in the outline itself.
3. **Evidence budgeting:** map every dataset/source cluster to the claims it supports. One chapter hoarding all evidence while another argues from air is the most common structural failure.
4. **Examiner simulation:** for each chapter ask, "what would a skeptical expert probe?" — method validity, alternative explanations, scope creep, the gap between claim and evidence.
5. **Scope honesty:** everything in the outline that doesn't serve the thesis sentence gets a cut-or-justify note. Theses are late because outlines are ambitious.

## Output Format

# Thesis Outline: [working title]
**Thesis sentence:** …
**The argument in four moves:** 1)… 2)… 3)… 4)…

## Chapter map
| Ch | Title | Job in the argument | Central claim | Evidence carried |
|---|---|---|---|---|

## Handoffs
[The one-sentence bridge ending each chapter]

## Examiner's risk register
| Weak link | Where | The probe they'd make | Shoring-up plan |
|---|---|---|---|

## Cut-or-justify
[Material that doesn't serve the thesis sentence, with a recommendation each]

## Quality Checks

- [ ] The thesis fits in one sentence
- [ ] Every chapter has both a job and a claim — no container chapters
- [ ] Handoffs are written, making the through-line inspectable
- [ ] Evidence allocation shows no starving chapter
- [ ] The risk register names real probes with real shoring plans

## Anti-Patterns

- [ ] Do not structure by activity ("what I read, what I did, what I found") — structure by argument
- [ ] Do not let chapter 2 be "everything I know about the field" — the literature review earns its place by establishing the gap, nothing more
- [ ] Do not allocate a claim no evidence supports — flag it as a collection gap now, not a defense surprise later
- [ ] Do not outline the ideal thesis — outline the one finishable with the data and months that exist
- [ ] Do not hide the weakest link — it's the first thing the committee finds; better it's the best-defended