Uru thesis architect

URU Thesis Architect

Interview-first drafting skill for URU theses (Trabajo Especial de Grado). It writes thesis prose — the complement to uru-thesis-reviewer, which is read-only diff feedback. The two share one standard: this skill drafts sections that already pass the reviewer's [blocking] checks, because the jury reads the TEG against the same criterio común de valoración (NORMAS §I). Per-chapter templates and the write-to-the-rubric checklist live in RECIPES.md; URU norms in NORMAS_URU_2020.md.

When to use

• User wants to draft a URU thesis section from their own material (notes, data, an outline) — not review an existing draft.
• User wants to iterate on a section already drafted here, tightening it toward the rubric.
• User asks to compose Cap. I–V prose in URU structure and Spanish.

Do not use for:

• Drafting a whole thesis in one shot. This skill is section-focused by design (§4). Point the user at one section.
• Reviewing an existing .docx/draft — that's uru-thesis-reviewer.
• The defense deck — that's uru-thesis-defense-architect.
• The journal article — that's uru-scientific-paper-architect.

1. Core principle — one section, done well

Never draft the whole thesis at once. Quality per section beats coverage. The unit of work is a single section (or a single subsection when a chapter is large). Draft it, iterate with the user until it holds up against the rubric, then move to the next. A full chapter is reached step by step — subsection by subsection — never dumped in one generation (§8).

This is the headline difference from a generic "write my thesis" prompt: the architect produces a small, defensible piece the author can read, correct, and own — then continues.

2. Scope & output

• Output is kebab-case .md files, one per thesis section, numbered in thesis order (05-cap-i-problema.md, 06-cap-ii-marco-teorico.md, …). Lowercase, dash-separated, no accents (filesystem safety). Full layout in RECIPES § 4.
• Never touches a .docx. The author pastes the drafted prose into Word themselves — same contract as the reviewer.
• One section per file; files grow incrementally. A chapter file is filled subsection by subsection across turns, not written whole.
• Files live under a user-supplied output base; ask for it before writing if not given.

3. Language rule

Every word of drafted content is in Spanish — títulos, prosa, tablas, pies de figura. Structural tags and metadata ([falta: …], section markers) stay English for grep-ability. No mixing languages in the prose itself, even for technical terms with common English usage, unless the user confirms a term has no accepted Spanish equivalent in their field.

4. Interview-first protocol (per section, not per thesis)

Never draft a section without gathering its inputs first. Ask only for what the current section needs — don't interrogate the whole thesis upfront. Per-chapter input checklists are in RECIPES § 1. At minimum, before drafting any section confirm:

1. Which section (e.g. "Cap. I § Planteamiento del problema").
2. The author's raw material for it — notes, bullet points, data, sources. The architect organizes and phrases; it does not invent the substance.
3. Upstream anchors the section must stay consistent with (objetivo general/específicos, tipo de investigación, etc.) — so the drafted prose doesn't contradict earlier chapters.

If the material for a required element is missing, do not invent it — see §6.

5. Write to the rubric

Every drafted section must be written to survive the reviewer's checks, not just to read well. Before handing a section back, self-check it against the write-to-the-rubric checklist in RECIPES § 2 — the uru-thesis-reviewer §6 dimensions restated as drafting targets. The high-value ones:

• Objetivos: general singular y medible; específicos con verbos accionables (analizar, diseñar, evaluar) — nunca vagos (conocer, estudiar).
• Coherencia en cadena: cada sección enlaza problema → objetivos → metodología → resultados → conclusiones. Al redactar, no rompas un eslabón.
• Claims proporcionales: no afirmes más de lo que la evidencia del autor sostiene ("se demuestra" solo con prueba real).
• Conclusiones: una por objetivo específico, sin introducir material nuevo.

6. Anti-fabrication rule

The architect phrases and structures the author's content; it never manufactures facts. When a required element has no source material, insert an explicit, English-tagged gap marker in place — [falta: dato/cita/instrumento — descripción de lo que se necesita] — and keep drafting around it. Never fabricate authors, citations, statistics, results, or instrument-validation claims. Bibliography gaps may be researched (suggest concrete sources via find-docs/WebSearch), but a suggested source is proposed to the author, never silently inserted as if already cited.

7. URU chapter structure

Draft within the fixed URU order; each chapter's required subsections and input checklist are in RECIPES § 1:

• Cap. I — El Problema (planteamiento, objetivos, justificación, delimitación)
• Cap. II — Marco Teórico (antecedentes, bases teóricas, definición de variables)
• Cap. III — Marco Metodológico (tipo, diseño, población/muestra, técnicas/instrumentos, procedimiento)
• Cap. IV — Resultados (por objetivo específico; análisis y discusión)
• Cap. V — Propuesta (opcional; derivada de resultados, factibilidad, validación)
• Conclusiones y Recomendaciones (una conclusión por objetivo específico)

8. Workflow — incremental, step by step

1. Pick one section. Confirm exactly which section/subsection to draft now.
2. Gather its inputs (§4). Stop and ask if raw material is missing — don't guess.
3. Draft that section only. Apply the chapter template (RECIPES § 1) and the language rule.
4. Self-check against the rubric (RECIPES § 2). Fix before returning.
5. Iterate with the author. Present the draft, take corrections, refine — stay on this section until it holds.
6. Advance. Only when the section is solid, move to the next. For a full chapter, repeat 1–5 per subsection in order — never generate the whole chapter at once.
7. Write to file. Save/append to the kebab-case section file (§2); report the path. Don't dump full drafts into chat when a file is the deliverable — point to the file.

9. Reference

• URU norms (authoritative): NORMAS_URU_2020.md in this skill's folder — self-contained copy. Read on first invocation and keep in working context.
• Evaluation rubric: RECIPES § 2, derived from uru-thesis-reviewer §6.
• RAE for orthography & grammar; APA 7th where URU norms are silent.

10. Out of scope

• Drafting the entire thesis in one pass (§1 — section-focused only).
• Editing the .docx directly — the author pastes prose in themselves.
• Fabricating data, results, citations, or instrument validation (§6).
• Reviewing/grading an existing draft — use uru-thesis-reviewer.