Research Question Formulator

Transform a broad topic into a focused, answerable research question with built-in significance using the 3-step sentence-completion formula (topic → direct question → So What?). Use this skill when the user has a subject or area of interest but no specific question, has a vague topic like "climate change" or "leadership" and needs to narrow it to something researchable, says they don't know what their paper is really about, is collecting too many notes without a clear direction, wants to know if their research question is worth asking, needs to test whether their topic is too broad (4-5 words = too broad), has a yes/no question that won't drive analysis, is asking a settled-fact question that doesn't open inquiry, wants to move from aimless reading to targeted evidence gathering, has a draft thesis but lost track of what question it answers, or is stuck at the beginning of a research project and doesn't know where to start — even if they never use the phrase "research question formulation." This skill handles question generation and significance testing; it does NOT write the thesis statement (use a separate skill) or plan the full argument structure.

Install

Claude CodeClawhHubnpxCursorCodexGemini CLI

1. Add marketplace

› /plugin marketplace add bookforge-ai/bookforge-skills

2. Install plugin

› /plugin install the-craft-of-research@bookforge-skills

3. Use the skill

› /research-question-formulator

CC-BY-SA · Open sourceGitHub

Source Book

The Craft of Research, Fourth Edition

Wayne C. Booth, Gregory G. Colomb, Joseph M. Williams, Joseph Bizup, and William T. FitzGerald

More from The Craft of Research, Fourth Edition

Research Methodologyfull

Argument Organization Reviser

Revise the structural organization of a research paper draft by applying a four-level top-down procedure — Frame (intro/conclusion alignment), Argument (section reasons + evidence ratios), Paper Organization (key-term threading + section signals), and Paragraphs (topic sentence placement + length). Use this skill whenever the user has a complete draft and asks to revise, reorganize, or strengthen its structure — not its prose style. Triggers include: user shares a draft paper and asks for structural feedback; user says sections feel disconnected or the argument is hard to follow; user's introduction and conclusion seem to contradict or not reinforce each other; user suspects their sections lack clear points or bury them in the middle; user cannot tell whether their evidence-to-reasoning ratio is balanced; user's paragraphs open with evidence rather than claims; user is preparing to submit and wants a final organizational pass. Also triggers on: "revise my structure," "does my argument hold together," "my advisor said the organization is unclear," "do my sections flow," "I need to check the coherence." This skill applies structural revision only — it does NOT revise prose style or sentence clarity (use prose-clarity-reviser for that), and does NOT rebuild an argument from scratch (use research-argument-builder for that).

+45%

Research Methodologyhybrid

Counterargument Handler

Anticipate, acknowledge, and respond to reader objections and alternative views in a research argument. Use this skill when the user has a draft argument or storyboard and needs to identify which objections readers will predictably raise, wants to decide which objections to acknowledge and which to set aside, needs vocabulary and sentence templates for introducing and responding to counterarguments without weakening their position, has discovered a flaw in their argument and does not know how to handle it honestly, is building a cause-and-effect argument and needs to address competing causes, has made claims with counterexamples that readers will invoke, uses key terms that readers may define differently and needs to address definitional scope, or wants to avoid either ignoring objections (seeming ignorant) or acknowledging too many (losing argumentative focus). This skill is the detailed companion to research-argument-builder — use it after assembling the argument's core structure (claim, reasons, evidence) and before drafting, to map every acknowledgment slot with a calibrated response strategy.

+45%

Research Methodologyhybrid

Data Visualization Selector

Select the correct graphic type (table, bar chart, line graph) for a dataset and rhetorical goal, then design and frame it to communicate evidence clearly and honestly. Use this skill whenever the user needs to present quantitative data in a research paper, report, thesis, presentation, or professional document and asks: which chart should I use, how should I visualize this data, how do I make this graphic clearer, is my chart misleading, how do I label or title a table or figure, or how do I introduce a graphic in text. Also triggers on: "my advisor said the table is confusing," "should I use a bar chart or line graph," "how do I make readers see my point in this figure," "is this graph ethical," "my chart looks amateurish," "the scale on my graph looks off," or any request to improve the visual communication of numerical evidence. Covers the full workflow: verbal-vs-visual decision → graphic type selection based on rhetorical effect → design simplification → framing with title, intro sentence, and labels → ethical integrity checks.

+45%

Research Methodologyfull

Prose Clarity Reviser

Revise dense, unclear prose into clear, readable sentences by applying four diagnostic principles — characters-as-subjects, actions-as-verbs, old-before-new information flow, and complexity-last sentence endings. Use this skill whenever the user shares a draft passage, paragraph, or document and asks you to make it clearer, more readable, easier to follow, less dense, less academic-sounding, or better written — even if they don't use those words. Also triggers on: "can you revise this," "this feels clunky," "my advisor said this is unclear," "make this flow better," "my writing sounds stilted," or any request to improve prose style in research papers, reports, essays, grant proposals, or professional documents. Apply all four principles end-to-end; return a revised version with brief annotations showing what changed and why.

+45%