Compound Writing

View saved version →

---
name: cw-ai-check
description: Scan or clean prose for AI-generated residue, including unsupported connective tissue, epistemic inflation, over-completed arguments, performed voice, formulaic structure, empty figurative language, stock phrasing, corporate abstraction, hedging, and false enthusiasm. Use for AI-smell cleanup, humanizing model-assisted prose, source-faithful drafting validation, writing polish, or pre-publication checks; enforce silently when composed into drafting or line editing.
---

# AI Check

## Purpose

Identify linguistic, structural, and epistemic patterns that make prose sound generated, then remove them without flattening the writer's meaning, voice, humor, or useful weirdness.

Generated prose often reveals itself through **overcompletion** before vocabulary: it supplies causality, symmetry, emotional meaning, and resolution that the source did not earn. Treat fidelity to the writer's knowledge as the first defense against AI smell.

For a full or source-based scan, read `references/structural-overcompletion.md` first. Then read `references/ai_tells_lexicon.csv` for lexical and sentence-pattern residue. Treat the lexicon as a pattern library, not a mechanical ban list.

## Behavior

### Silent Enforcement

When composed into Draft or Line Edit:

- Scan generated or revised copy.
- Repair clear AI tells without narrating the pass.
- Preserve meaning, provenance, and the active voice context.
- Show the user usable copy only.

### Manual Cleanup

When the user asks to clean or remove AI smell:

1. Provide the cleaned copy first.
2. Follow with a concise audit trail in document order.
3. Omit categories, severity labels, and confidence scores unless requested.

When the user explicitly asks for diagnosis only, do not rewrite. Return a sequential checklist with the quoted problem and a suggested fix.

## Scan Order

Run the passes in this order. Do not start with a word blacklist.

1. **Provenance:** Remove or flag details, motives, scenes, causes, and outcomes that the source does not establish.
2. **Epistemic fidelity:** Restore the writer's actual degree of certainty and distinguish observation from interpretation.
3. **Causal and argumentative closure:** Reopen contradictions or unknowns the draft resolved for elegance.
4. **Argument self-commentary:** Cut sentences that rate the evidence, signpost the structure, label a claim's status, or interpret a quote before delivering it.
5. **Structure and voice performance:** Find imposed symmetry, framework compliance, sustained conceits, and over-supplied signature moves.
6. **Reader and research posture:** Stop unsupported universalization and decorative authority.
7. **Lexical and sentence residue:** Apply the categories and lexicon below.

When only finished prose is available, do not invent a source mismatch. Phrase provenance concerns as questions or conditional flags. The self-commentary pass is the exception — it needs no source and runs at full confidence on finished copy.

## Detection Categories

### 0. Structural Overcompletion

Read `references/structural-overcompletion.md` when any of these conditions apply:

- prose was drafted or substantially revised by a model;
- notes, transcripts, research, or earlier human drafts are available for comparison;
- the draft avoids stock AI vocabulary but still feels generated (this is the signature condition for §11, argument self-commentary);
- the user asks whether the writing sounds human, over-written, too polished, or unlike them; or
- a full AI-residue scan is requested.

Flag unsupported connective tissue, strengthened certainty, neat causal explanations, examples forced into one taxonomy, voice moves supplied at implausible density, metaphors extended for continuity, reader experiences assigned without evidence, and endings that settle more than the writer settled.

**Fix:** Return to the source boundary. Separate observation from interpretation, preserve contradictions, let structure follow the material, ration conspicuous voice moves, and end on the strongest earned consequence or open question.

### 1. Generic Frames And Openers

Flag contextless setup such as:

- "In today's fast-paced world"
- "In the ever-evolving landscape of [X]"
- "In a world/an era where [X]"
- "With the rise of [X]"
- "As [trend] continues to [X]"
- "In the realm of [X]"
- "Let's dive/break it down/delve into [X]"
- "At its core, [X] is [Y]"
- "It is important/worth noting that [X]"
- "Join us as we [X]"

**Fix:** Start with a concrete fact, date, scene, action, or proper noun.

### 2. AI-Scent Vocabulary And Unnecessary Formality

Flag puffery, vague praise, and elevated substitutes for plain words, including:

- delve, tapestry used metaphorically, reimagined, nuanced, multifaceted
- leverage, utilize, harness, unlock, unleash, empower
- pivotal, crucial, vital, significant, noteworthy, transformative
- robust, seamless, comprehensive, meticulous, bespoke
- foster, underscore, illuminate, endeavor, embark
- elevate, amplify, optimize, spearhead, revolutionize
- plethora, myriad, commence, facilitate, optimal, prior to, whilst, amongst

**Fix:** Prefer plain verbs and specific nouns. Do not replace a precise domain term merely because it appears in the lexicon.

### 3. Corporate And MBA Abstraction

Flag business language that hides a plain claim:

- problem space, solution space, value proposition
- go-to-market motion, north star metric, operating cadence
- frameworks for thinking about [X], mental models around [X]
- pain points, actionable insights, key takeaways, move the needle
- low-hanging fruit, circle back, touch base, strategic alignment
- stakeholders, deliverables, digital transformation, paradigm shift

**Fix:** Name the actual problem, action, person, decision, metric, or result.

### 4. Stock Templates And Empty Emphasis

Flag general-purpose scaffolding such as:

- "When it comes to [X]"
- "The truth is [X]"
- "Now more than ever [X]"
- "Has emerged as [X]"
- "Represents a significant milestone"
- "Serves/stands as a testament to [X]"
- "At the end of the day"
- "One thing is clear"
- "Moving forward"
- "The bottom line is"

**Fix:** Delete the frame and state the concrete claim.

### 5. Empty Analogies And Figurative Language

Flag figurative language when the image supplies polish without adding meaning. Apply these tests:

- **Deletion test:** Removing the comparison leaves the meaning intact.
- **Mapping test:** The prose never identifies the shared mechanism, relationship, or structure between the two things.
- **Swap test:** Different topic nouns could be dropped into the image with no meaningful change.
- **Restatement test:** The figurative line merely repeats the literal sentence before or after it.
- **Payoff test:** The image adds no consequence, inference, stakes, or felt understanding.
- **Callback test:** An extended metaphor is maintained for literary continuity but stops helping the reader reason.

Also flag exhausted metaphors such as "tapestry of," "treasure trove," "double-edged sword," "tip of the iceberg," "uncharted waters," "beacon of hope," "standing at a crossroads," "blueprint for success," and "symphony/mosaic of."

**Fix:** Cut the ornament, state the literal claim, or make the comparison earn its place by naming the exact correspondence and what it helps the reader understand.

**Protect:** Keep fresh or tactile figurative language when it clarifies a mechanism, makes an abstraction graspable, produces a distinct inference, sharpens stakes, or carries the writer's specific point of view. Do not treat all metaphor as an AI tell.

### 6. Filler, Hedging, False Enthusiasm, And Perpetual Balance

Flag:

- "just" used as emphasis and "actually" used as filler
- reflexive uncertainty clusters: might, could, perhaps, generally, arguably, potentially, somewhat, often
- "Generally speaking," "It can be argued," "To some extent," "It depends on"
- "Based on the information provided"
- "Absolutely!" "Certainly!" "Great question!" "I'd be happy to help"
- "Both sides present valid points," "There are pros and cons," "Reasonable people may disagree"

**Fix:** Delete empty softening and enthusiasm. Make the strongest supportable claim and state real uncertainty precisely.

### 7. Formal Transitions And Vague Authority

Flag overused academic connectors and anonymous evidence claims:

- moreover, furthermore, additionally, consequently, thus, hence, therefore
- accordingly, notably, significantly, essentially, indeed, subsequently
- not only...but also, whether...or
- "Studies show," "Experts agree," "Research indicates," "According to recent reports"

**Fix:** Use a natural connector or restructure. Name and link the evidence, including dates and numbers, or remove the unsupported claim.

### 8. Correlatives And Negative Parallelisms

Flag repeated or formulaic contrasts:

- "not X but Y"
- "not just X, but also Y"
- "not because X, but because Y"
- "It's not about X. It's about Y."

**Fix:** State the positive claim directly or use a simple contrast. Preserve an isolated construction only when it is clearly the strongest sentence for the active voice.

### 9. Formulaic Structure And Manufactured Drama

Flag:

- "No X. No Y. Just Z."
- staccato declarative triads and redundant triplet sentences
- repeated fragments that manufacture urgency
- excessive rule of threes
- overly symmetric lists, bullets, and paragraph lengths
- uniform sentence length across a passage
- repeated `subject + verb + object, present participle + detail` constructions
- serial lists that drop the final "and" by default
- dramatic reveals that inflate an ordinary finding
- vague transformation statements that do not say what changed

**Fix:** Collapse repetition, vary rhythm, restore conjunctions, and replace drama with the specific event, finding, or change.

### 10. Aphoristic Equations And AI Cleverisms

Flag symmetrical, portable lines whose shape substitutes for proof:

- "X without Y is just Z"
- "X is Y for Z"
- "What gets X gets Y"
- "The best X is the X that doesn't [verb]"
- any line that reads like a tweet pretending to be a thesis

**Fix:** Back the line with the example or evidence that earned it, make the claim directly, or cut it.

### 11. Formulaic Closers

Flag:

- "In conclusion," "In summary," "To summarize," "To sum up"
- "Overall," "Ultimately"
- conclusions that merely repeat the article
- generic "one thing is clear" endings

**Fix:** End on the strongest implication, a concrete next step, or a specific unresolved question.

### 12. Argument Self-Commentary

Also called rhetorical scaffolding. The prose describes its own argument instead of making it. Plain words, short sentences, nothing from the lexicon — which is why this survives every other category here. Full treatment in `references/structural-overcompletion.md` §11.

Flag four subtypes:

- **Evidence self-rating:** "the cleanest thing we found," "the good part is measurable," "the artifact that convinced me," "the benchmarks are less charming"
- **Structural signposting:** "the other half of the read," "then there's the map," "verbosity is only the surface of it," "X sets the boundary on this"
- **Epistemic labeling:** "the open question is," "two things stay provisional," "one result complicates the picture"
- **Quote characterization:** "Mike put it best," "the complaint was unanimous"

Two tests, either sufficient:

- **Deletion test.** Cut it. If the argument stands and only reader guidance is lost, it was scaffolding.
- **Referent test.** Flag nouns pointing at the piece rather than the subject: *the read, the section, the picture, the case, the evidence, the takeaway, the boundary.*

**Fix:** Delete, or convert commentary into the thing it described. Uncertainty becomes the fact that limits it. A turn becomes one word. A quote gets a person and a task.

**Protect:** Adjudication between two-sided findings is a claim about the world and often required — "Mike's construction check could change the hotel choice. The HTML page could not" stays; "the construction check is the stronger finding" goes. Publication handoff conventions stay.

## Context Guardrails

Not every match is a problem. Check intent and domain before changing it:

- Do not confuse coherence with overcompletion; flag structure only when it outruns or distorts the material.
- Do not confuse adjudication with self-commentary; deciding between findings is a claim, describing that decision is scaffolding.
- Do not preserve errors, repetition, or disorder merely to make prose seem human.
- Do not manufacture quirky specificity as an antidote to generic prose; specificity must come from the source.
- Keep temporal "just" and corrective "actually."
- Keep warranted uncertainty; remove only reflexive or vague hedging.
- Keep standard domain language when it is precise.
- Keep formal transitions when the genre genuinely calls for them.
- Keep intentional irony or quotation.
- Keep meaning-bearing analogies and metaphors.
- Preserve source certainty and do not make a cautious claim stronger than its evidence.

## Output Formats

### Cleanup

```text
## Cleaned Copy

[Rewritten text]

---

## What Changed

1. Line/paragraph [N]: "[original]" -> "[revision]"
   Why: [brief explanation]

Summary: [X] AI tells removed. Primary patterns: [short list].
```

### Diagnosis Only

```text
## Sequential Editing Checklist

□ Line/paragraph [N]: "[quoted problem]"
  -> [suggested fix]
```

## User Extensions

Use `/cw-save` or an explicit in-flow request to route confirmed recurring tells into the maintained lexicon or governing voice context. Never edit an installed cache as the source of truth.

Referenced files: 2

View saved version →

---
name: cw-analogy
description: Generate analogy options to explain a concept. Invoke with /cw-analogy or /cw-analogy [concept to explain].
---

# Analogy

## Purpose

Generate analogy options to make an abstract or complex concept concrete and understandable.

## Invocation

- `/cw-analogy [concept]` — Generate analogies for the specified concept
- `/cw-analogy` — System asks "What concept do you want to explain?" then generates options
- Works on selection if provided, asks if not

## How to Generate

1. **Understand the concept** — What's the core mechanism or principle?

2. **Identify the audience** — What do they already know? What's familiar to them?

3. **Find parallel structures** — What everyday experiences share the same underlying pattern?

4. **Generate 3 analogies** from different domains:
   - Physical/tangible world
   - Human relationships or social dynamics
   - Common activities or processes

5. **Test each analogy:**
   - Does it illuminate the concept?
   - Does it hold up under scrutiny (or break in misleading ways)?
   - Is it accessible to the target audience?

## Output Format

```
## Analogy Options

### Option 1: [Domain]
[The analogy explained in 2-3 sentences]

### Option 2: [Domain]
[The analogy explained in 2-3 sentences]

### Option 3: [Domain]
[The analogy explained in 2-3 sentences]

---

Which clicks? Or want me to explore a different angle?
```

## Principles

- **Familiar vehicle, unfamiliar cargo** — The analogy should come from something the reader knows well
- **Structural, not surface** — The best analogies share underlying mechanisms, not just superficial features
- **Know the limits** — Every analogy breaks down somewhere; know where yours does
- **Concrete beats abstract** — "It's like a thermostat" beats "It's like a feedback loop"

## What to Avoid

- Analogies that require as much explanation as the original concept
- Clichéd comparisons (tip of the iceberg, double-edged sword)
- Analogies that mislead more than they illuminate
- Mixing metaphors

## Lessons

[Skill-specific lessons will be added here as they're captured]

View saved version →

---
name: cw-bluf
description: Diagnose whether the most important idea in an article, essay, post, memo, section, paragraph, or sentence appears where it best serves the reader. Use for BLUF checks, buried or misplaced ledes, slow or misleading openings, intro drift, competing main ideas, and requests to get to the point or find the real opening. Compare what the opening foregrounds with what the artifact actually delivers, judge whether any delay is earned, and recommend the smallest structural move. Diagnose by default; rewrite only when asked.
---

# BLUF

## Purpose

Find the most important idea in the supplied writing and judge whether the reader encounters it at the earliest point that best serves the piece.

Treat BLUF as an importance-and-placement test, not a rule that every piece must state its thesis in the first sentence. Account for audience, purpose, format, narrative strategy, persuasion, and comic timing.

Read `../../references/context-contract.md` and load the relevant project, publication, assignment, audience, and format context before judging placement.

Preserve the writer's ownership of the thesis. Surface a stronger latent lede as a candidate, not as permission to rebuild the piece around a new argument.

## Establish The Scope

Identify:

- The unit under review: full piece, post, section, paragraph, or sentence
- The intended reader
- The unit's job: inform, recommend, persuade, explain, instruct, entertain, or narrate
- The amount of attention and prior knowledge the format reasonably allows

Read the full supplied artifact before judging its opening. Do not infer the bottom line from the introduction alone.

For a long piece with subheads, check the whole-piece BLUF first, then perform a lightweight section scan. For a supplied selection, judge that unit unless broader context is required to determine its purpose.

If no audience is named, assume an intelligent, interested first-time reader with no unstated context.

## Extract The Three BLUFs

Distinguish among:

| Layer | Question |
|---|---|
| **Declared BLUF** | What do the headline, opening, or first beat tell the reader is important? |
| **Delivered BLUF** | What idea does the complete artifact actually spend its weight supporting, demonstrating, or concluding? |
| **Latent lede** | Is a more consequential idea hiding later that deserves greater prominence? |

State when the layers align.

Do not mistake the most vivid sentence, broadest claim, or cleverest phrase for the latent lede. A latent lede must better capture the artifact's consequence, argument, finding, action, or reader payoff.

If several plausible bottom lines compete, surface them as choices requiring writer judgment.

## Determine The Placement Mode

Use the artifact's function to determine what "up front" should mean.

| Mode | Placement expectation |
|---|---|
| **Decision, recommendation, memo, news, or report** | State the conclusion, change, finding, or required action immediately. |
| **Essay, analysis, or explainer** | Allow a hook to lead, but surface the thesis, stakes, or governing idea within the opening movement. |
| **Narrative or feature** | Allow a scene or anecdote to lead when it carries the central tension. Surface the larger meaning before curiosity becomes confusion. |
| **Short post** | Use either an immediate point or an earned setup and payoff. Judge whether the landing repays the delay. |
| **Persuasion for a resistant audience** | Permit strategic delay when immediate disclosure would close the reader before the case can be made. |
| **Process or instructions** | State the purpose or outcome early, then organize the body in usable sequence. |
| **Section or paragraph** | Place the contribution near the opening unless a deliberate reveal improves comprehension or force. |
| **Sentence** | Put the conceptual and grammatical payload before secondary context unless delayed syntax creates a purposeful landing. |

Do not apply a universal paragraph or word-count threshold. Judge delay relative to the artifact's length, reader, and function.

## Run The Placement Tests

### Stop-Reading Test

Stop at the end of the natural preview:

- Subject line and first sentence for an email or memo
- First beat for a short post
- Headline, dek, and opening sentences for an article
- Opening movement for an essay or narrative
- First sentence for a section or paragraph

State what a reader would believe the artifact is about and what they would miss by stopping there.

### Alignment Test

Compare the declared and delivered BLUFs.

Check whether the headline, opening, body, and ending agree about the important idea. Flag an opening that is clear but foregrounds the wrong thing.

### Delay Test

Inspect everything that appears before the delivered or latent BLUF.

Keep material that creates necessary context, tension, trust, comprehension, narrative force, persuasive leverage, or comic timing.

Flag material that mainly records the writer's warm-up, supplies background before relevance, repeats setup, or postpones a point already ready to land.

Every delay must earn itself.

### Hierarchy Test

Check whether the material following the BLUF supports, develops, qualifies, or applies it in a useful order.

Do not require descending importance when chronology, causality, suspense, or instructional sequence better serves the reader.

### Compression Test

Express the delivered BLUF in one or two sentences.

If it cannot be expressed without joining unrelated claims, diagnose a split or unclear center rather than merely moving a sentence earlier.

## Choose A Verdict

| Verdict | Meaning |
|---|---|
| **Front and center** | The right idea appears where it best serves the artifact. |
| **Delayed but earned** | The point arrives later, but the preceding material improves its comprehension, force, or payoff. |
| **Buried** | The right idea exists, but unnecessary material delays it. |
| **Wrong lede** | The opening clearly foregrounds a secondary idea while a more consequential one appears later. |
| **Unclear or split** | The artifact does not establish one governing idea, or several ideas compete without hierarchy. |

Add a secondary diagnosis only when useful:

- **Intro drift** — The opening describes an earlier version of the piece rather than the piece as written.
- **Premature BLUF** — The point appears early but before the reader has the minimum context needed to understand or trust it.
- **Local burial** — A section, paragraph, or sentence hides its own contribution.
- **Repeated BLUF** — The writing keeps re-announcing the point instead of developing it.

## Report The Diagnosis

For articles, essays, or substantial sections, use:

```markdown
## BLUF Check

**Scope:** [Full piece / section / post / paragraph / sentence]

**Verdict:** [Front and center / Delayed but earned / Buried / Wrong lede / Unclear or split]

**Declared BLUF:** [What the opening foregrounds]

**Delivered BLUF:** [What the artifact actually supports or concludes]

**Latent lede:** [Stronger idea found later, if present]

**Current location:** [Exact paragraph, section, or quoted sentence]

**Best location:** [Where the important idea belongs]

### Placement Diagnosis

[Explain what earns its place before the BLUF, what delays it unnecessarily, and how the current order affects the reader.]

### Smallest Effective Move

[Move, cut, promote, combine, reframe, or preserve.]

### What To Protect

[Scene, tension, voice, qualification, joke, or context that should survive the change.]
```

Omit the latent-lede and protection fields when they do not apply.

For a short post, paragraph, or sentence, compress the output:

```markdown
**Verdict:** [Verdict]

**BLUF:** [Most important idea]

**Placement:** [Where it is and where it belongs]

**Smallest move:** [Specific recommendation]
```

Quote the relevant language and identify its exact location. Do not give a generic instruction to "get to the point."

## Revise Only When Asked

Diagnose and recommend placement by default.

When asked to fix the artifact:

1. Preserve the writer's intended claim and voice.
2. Try the smallest structural move first: promote an existing sentence, move a paragraph, cut warm-up, tighten the bridge between hook and point, or reframe the opening emphasis.
3. Rewrite the opening only when rearrangement cannot solve the problem.
4. Adjust transitions created by the move.
5. Do not introduce stock announcements such as "This article argues" or "The bottom line is."
6. Flag any proposed thesis change for writer judgment before rebuilding the piece around it.

## Boundaries

- Use `cw-hook` to generate an attention-getting opening. A strong hook can still bury or misrepresent the lede.
- Use `cw-thesis` when the central claim itself needs to be generated or sharpened. BLUF judges the hierarchy and placement of ideas already present.
- Use `cw-tracks` to remove scaffolding, discovery narration, and writerly warm-up throughout a draft. BLUF focuses on where the important idea belongs.
- Use `cw-dev-edit` for a comprehensive review of argument, structure, stakes, evidence, and payoff. BLUF is a narrower placement lens.
- Use `cw-reader` to report the lived sequence of confusion, resistance, or lost attention. BLUF makes an editorial judgment about importance and order.
- Use `cw-final-pass` for a publication-readiness verdict. A BLUF check can happen at any stage and on incomplete material.

## Principles

- Put reader value before writer chronology.
- Distinguish attention from importance.
- Treat a clear but secondary opening as a placement failure.
- Protect deliberate suspense, persuasion, humor, and narrative timing when they earn the delay.
- Do not confuse directness with formulaic thesis announcements.
- Prefer the smallest move that reveals the piece already present.
- Keep consequential thesis choices with the writer.

Referenced files: 1

View saved version →

---
name: cw-brainstorm
description: Help users surface raw material for a piece when they don't have a specific idea yet. Invoke with /cw-brainstorm or when user says they want to explore ideas.
---

# Brainstorm

## Purpose

Help the user surface raw material for a piece when they arrive without a specific idea. The goal is to uncover something worth writing about through exploratory conversation.

## Floor Criteria

All ideas must pass the **New, True, Useful** test:

### New
The idea either:
- Makes the new familiar (introduces something unfamiliar and makes it accessible)
- Makes the familiar new (takes something known and reveals a fresh angle or connection)

**Test:** "Does this make the new familiar, or the familiar new?"

### True
Depending on subject matter, the idea should be:
- Factually accurate (verifiable claims, correct data)
- Honest to the writer's experience (authentic, not performed)
- Resonant to human experience (rings true, recognizable)
- Logically sound (the argument holds up under scrutiny)

### Useful
In order of importance (customizable per writer or piece):
1. **Generative** — sparks further thinking, opens new questions
2. **Reframing** — changes how reader sees a problem or situation
3. **Clarifying** — helps reader understand something they couldn't before
4. **Actionable** — reader can do something with it

## What to Hunt For

Probe for material that exhibits these qualities:

| Quality | What You're Looking For |
|---------|-------------------------|
| **Surprise** | Something that defied expectations |
| **Tension** | Contradictions, paradoxes, things that shouldn't both be true |
| **Transformation** | Change over time—in thinking, behavior, understanding |
| **Friction** | Frustrations, obstacles, things that drive the user crazy |
| **Pattern recognition** | Connections across domains the user has noticed |
| **Earned insight** | Something learned through experience, not just reading |

## How to Conduct the Session

1. **Start open-ended.** Don't lead with a framework—let the user talk.

2. **Ask follow-up questions** that dig into the qualities above:
   - "What surprised you about that?"
   - "What changed for you?"
   - "What do most people get wrong about this?"
   - "Why does this matter to you personally?"
   - "What's the tension here?"

3. **Test ideas against the floor.** When something promising surfaces, mentally check:
   - Is it new (or a new angle)?
   - Is it true (in the relevant sense)?
   - Is it useful (generative, reframing, clarifying, or actionable)?

4. **Keep probing** until you find material that passes the floor criteria.

## Exit Triggers

The brainstorm session ends when:

1. **User explicitly requests to move on** — natural language like "I think I've got something" or "let's develop this one"

2. **System detects excitement signals** and offers to advance:
   - Increased specificity ("Oh, and another thing about that...")
   - Energy language ("Yes!", "Exactly", "That's it")
   - Unprompted elaboration (user keeps building without being asked)
   - Returning to an idea after exploring others

When you detect excitement, offer: "It sounds like this one is resonating—want to develop it further?"

## Transition

When exiting brainstorm, transition to **Interview** to extract what's needed for an outline.

## Lessons

[Skill-specific lessons will be added here as they're captured]

View saved version →

---
name: cw-debate
description: Run a multi-round deliberation between reviewers. Unlike /cw-panel (which synthesizes), /cw-debate has reviewers respond to each other's arguments across rounds until tensions resolve or reach acknowledged stalemate.
---

# Debate Review

Orchestrate a structured deliberation between reviewer agents. Reviewers don't just give feedback in parallel—they engage with each other's perspectives, challenge each other's recommendations, and work toward resolution (or acknowledged stalemate).

## When to Use /cw-debate vs /cw-panel

| Use | When |
|-----|------|
| `/cw-panel` | You want multiple perspectives synthesized. Fast. Tensions surfaced for you to decide. |
| `/cw-debate` | You want reviewers to actually argue it out. More thorough. Tensions may resolve through deliberation. |

**Choose /cw-debate when:**
- The piece is high-stakes and worth the extra rounds
- You want to see how perspectives hold up under challenge
- You suspect some tensions might resolve if reviewers engaged each other
- You want proposals and compromises, not just "you decide"

**Choose /cw-panel when:**
- You want comprehensive feedback quickly
- You're comfortable resolving tensions yourself
- Time/tokens are a concern

## The Deliberation Flow

### Round 1: Initial Positions

Same as /cw-panel—all reviewers analyze the draft independently.

### Round 2: Challenges

The moderator identifies tensions and sends challenges to involved reviewers:

```
## Challenge: The fishing gear paragraph

**The passage:**
> "His tackle box was a museum of failures—rusted lures from the '70s..."

**hemingway said:**
> "47 words that could be 15. Cut it."

**sedaris said:**
> "This is the most alive moment in the piece. Keep every word."

---

**hemingway:** sedaris argues the specificity earns its place. How do you respond?

**sedaris:** hemingway argues this slows momentum. How do you respond?
```

### Round 3: Responses

Reviewers respond in character. They may:

- **Concede** — "On reflection, the detail does earn its place. I withdraw."
- **Hold** — "The momentum problem remains. Even good details hurt here."
- **Propose** — "Keep the first image, cut the extended list. Satisfies both."

### Round 4: Resolution

For each tension:
- **Resolved** — Reviewers agree (via concession or proposal)
- **Stalemate** — Reviewers hold, fundamental value difference
- **Proposal on table** — Compromise offered, writer decides

The moderator may run additional rounds if proposals generate new discussion, but caps at 4 rounds.

## The Flow in Practice

### 1. Load Context

Read `../../references/context-contract.md`, the draft, and any available brief, outline, project instructions, feedback, or status metadata. Establish:
- piece_type
- audience
- stage
- goals

Infer missing context from the draft and request. Do not require `.status.yaml`.

### 2. Propose Panel

Same as /cw-panel—propose 4-6 reviewers based on context.

```
## Proposed Panel for Debate

**Draft:** [title]
**Context:** [piece_type] for [audience], [stage]

| Reviewer | Why |
|----------|-----|
| **[name]** | [Rationale] |
| **[name]** | [Rationale] |

**Note:** Debate works best with reviewers who have natural tensions.
Consider including pairs like:
- hemingway + sedaris (economy vs. specificity)
- reader + hitchcock (orientation vs. mystery)
- sorkin + vonnegut (speed vs. depth)

Proceed with this panel, or adjust?
```

Wait for user confirmation.

### 3. Round 1: Run Reviewers

Run all reviewers in parallel when the active platform supports isolated workers and the user's explicit debate request authorizes them. On Claude, use the matching reviewer agents when available; on Codex or another runtime, use the reviewer skills or isolated workers with those lenses. Collect independent outputs.

### 4. Round 2: Identify Tensions and Generate Challenges

Analyze outputs for conflicts. For each significant tension:
- Quote the passage
- Present both positions
- Generate challenge prompts

Spawn challenged reviewers with the challenge context.

### 5. Round 3: Collect Responses

Each reviewer responds to their challenge:
- Concede, Hold, or Propose
- With reasoning

### 6. Round 4: Resolution and Additional Rounds

Determine resolution status. If proposals warrant further discussion, run another round (max 4 total).

### 7. Final Synthesis

Return the debate-moderator's synthesis:
- Resolved tensions (with how they resolved)
- Stalemates (with final positions and stakes)
- Proposals (compromise options)
- Consensus findings (non-debated)
- The hard question

## Panel Selection for Debate

Debate is most valuable when the panel includes natural tensions:

| Pairing | Tension Type | Good For |
|---------|--------------|----------|
| hemingway + sedaris | Economy vs. Specificity | Deciding what earns its length |
| reader + hitchcock | Orientation vs. Mystery | Distinguishing strategic withholding from accidental confusion |
| reader + hemingway | Context vs. Brevity | Deciding what setup a first-time reader needs |
| reader + sorkin | Orientation vs. Momentum | Giving readers footing without slowing the piece |
| mom + hemingway | Accessibility vs. Brevity | Deciding what a non-expert audience needs explained |
| sorkin + sedaris | Momentum vs. Observation | Pacing of descriptive passages |
| sorkin + vonnegut | Speed vs. Depth | When to slow for character |
| nemesis + sedaris | Rigor vs. Voice | Tone of argument pieces |

**Recommendation:** Include at least one natural tension pair in your panel.

## Example Session

```
User: /cw-debate

Agent: I'll run a deliberation on your draft. Let me read it and propose a panel.

[Reads draft]
[Loads the brief and project context: personal essay, general audience, revision stage]

## Proposed Panel for Debate

**Draft:** father-and-the-sea
**Context:** personal essay for general audience, revision stage

| Reviewer | Why |
|----------|-----|
| **hemingway** | Check economy—personal essays can get overwritten |
| **sedaris** | Find the specific, human, funny moments |
| **sorkin** | Verify pacing through emotional beats |
| **reader** | Trace the first-time reading experience |

**Natural tensions:** hemingway/sedaris (economy vs. specificity),
sorkin/sedaris (momentum vs. observation)

Proceed with this panel, or adjust?

User: yes

Agent: Running Round 1—each reviewer analyzing independently.

[Spawns 4 reviewers in parallel]
[Collects outputs]

Round 1 complete. Analyzing for tensions.

## Tensions Identified

### Tension 1: The tackle box paragraph
**hemingway** wants to cut; **sedaris** wants to keep every word.

### Tension 2: Section 3 pacing
**sorkin** says it stalls; **sedaris** says the observation is the point.

### Tension 3: Ending explanation
**mom** wants more; **sorkin** says trust the reader.

Proceeding to Round 2 with 3 challenges.

[Spawns challenged reviewers with challenge context]
[Collects responses]

## Round 2 Responses

**Tension 1:**
- hemingway: HOLD — "Momentum matters more than any single detail."
- sedaris: PROPOSE — "Keep 'museum of failures' and the pug. Cut the Reagan line."

**Tension 2:**
- sorkin: CONCEDE — "If the observation is the point, I was wrong to call it a stall."
- sedaris: (no concession needed)

**Tension 3:**
- mom: HOLD — "I still don't know what he learned. That's a real gap."
- sorkin: PROPOSE — "One specific image of the lesson. Not explanation—scene."

Proceeding to final synthesis.

## Debate Synthesis

**Panel:** hemingway, sedaris, sorkin, mom
**Rounds:** 2
**Context:** personal essay for general audience, revision stage

---

### Resolved Tensions

**Section 3 pacing**

> [The observation passage]

**Resolution:** Sorkin conceded. The slow pace is intentional and earns its place.
**Recommendation:** Keep as-is. The observation is the point.

---

### Stalemates

*None—all tensions reached resolution or proposal.*

---

### Proposals

**The tackle box paragraph**

> "His tackle box was a museum of failures—rusted lures from the '70s,
> a reel that hadn't worked since Reagan, hooks that had never caught
> anything but his own thumb."

**Proposed revision:** "His tackle box was a museum of failures—hooks
that had never caught anything but his own thumb."

**Proposed by:** sedaris (compromise with hemingway)
**Would satisfy:** Keeps the voice and "museum" metaphor, cuts the catalog
**Trade-off:** Loses the temporal sweep ("'70s," "Reagan")

---

**The ending**

**Proposed revision:** Add one concrete image showing what you learned,
rather than explaining it.

**Proposed by:** sorkin (compromise with mom)
**Would satisfy:** Mom gets clarity; sorkin keeps momentum
**Trade-off:** Requires writing new material

---

### Consensus Findings

| Issue | Flagged By | Recommendation |
|-------|------------|----------------|
| Opening is slow | hemingway, sorkin | Start on the boat |
| "He taught me everything" unearned | all | Show, don't declare |

---

### The Deliberation Summary

**Resolved:** 1 tension resolved through concession
**Stalemates:** 0
**Proposals:** 2 compromise options for your consideration

---

### The Hard Question

> The debate kept circling one thing: you're telling us the relationship
> mattered without showing us what made it irreplaceable. The ending
> proposal addresses this—but only if you write a scene that earns it.
```

## Cost And Scope

Debate is materially slower and more context-intensive than panel because reviewers receive follow-up challenges. Use it for consequential tensions, cap the number of rounds, and prefer `cw-panel` for routine coverage.

## Error Handling

**If a reviewer fails to spawn:**
- Note the gap
- Proceed with available reviewers
- Tensions involving that reviewer won't be debated

**If no tensions identified:**
- Skip to synthesis
- Report as "No significant tensions—reviewers largely aligned"

**If a reviewer doesn't respond to challenge:**
- Treat as implicit HOLD
- Note non-response in synthesis

**If debate goes circular:**
- Moderator calls stalemate after positions repeat
- Cap at 4 rounds regardless

## Relationship to /cw-panel

`/cw-panel` and `/cw-debate` share infrastructure:
- Same reviewer agents
- Same context loading from the active project and artifact
- Same panel proposal logic

The difference:
- `/cw-panel` → synthesizer (one pass, tensions surfaced)
- `/cw-debate` → moderator (multiple rounds, tensions engaged)

A natural workflow: run `/cw-panel` first for quick feedback, then `/cw-debate` on specific tensions if you want them argued out.

## Lessons

[Skill-specific lessons will be added here as they're captured]

View saved version →

---
name: cw-dev-edit
description: Review a draft for big-picture issues in argument, structure, stakes, evidence, and payoff. Use when a piece needs developmental editing, a top-level diagnosis, or substantial restructuring before sentence polish.
---

# Developmental Edit

## Purpose

Review a draft for big-picture issues: argument, structure, stakes, and payoff. Focus on whether the piece *works*, not whether the sentences are polished.

Read `../../references/context-contract.md` and load the relevant assignment, project, publication, source, and voice context before judging the draft.

Keep the writer in the loop on thesis development. Surface evidence and counterarguments that pressure the thesis, present possible moves, and do not quietly replace the core argument.

## Entry Points

- After completing a draft through the workflow
- Directly with any draft from anywhere
- As part of a composed "make this better" request

## What to Look For

Questions to consider (not all apply to every piece):

| Area | Questions |
|------|-----------|
| **Structure** | Does each section earn its place? Does the order make sense? |
| **Argument** | Is it logically clear and supported? Any holes? |
| **Evidence** | What backs each major claim? Personal experience? A linked study? A specific example? Where is the support thin or missing? |
| **Outsider read** | If a reader who doesn't know the writer or publication picked this up cold, what would they push back on? What would feel like in-group shorthand? |
| **Opening** | Does the hook work? Is the thesis clear? Is there a promise? |
| **Stakes** | Why should the reader care? Why does the writer care? |
| **Payoff** | Does the piece deliver on what it promises? |

**Use judgment.** A personal essay doesn't need argument scrutiny. A how-to doesn't need stakes analysis. Focus on what matters for this piece.

## The Structural Tests

Two diagnostic tests for whether the piece holds together. Run both when the structure feels off — or proactively for any piece with subheads.

### The Subsection Summary Test

For each subsection: write a one-sentence summary of what it argues. Then re-read the subsection. Anything not in service of that one sentence — cut it.

When invoked by the agent:
1. Identify each subsection (subhead-defined or paragraph-cluster).
2. Generate a one-sentence argument summary per subsection.
3. Flag paragraphs, examples, or asides that don't serve their subsection's summary.
4. Report the summaries alongside the flagged content so the writer can decide what stays.

This test catches: orphaned good lines that belong elsewhere, padding from earlier drafts, two arguments tangled inside one subsection.

### The 20-Second Pitch Test

If someone stopped the writer in a hallway, could they explain the piece in 20 seconds? Now compare that pitch to the thesis/promise as stated in the intro.

When invoked by the agent:
1. Generate a 20-second pitch from the piece as written (what it's actually about, end to end).
2. Pull the thesis/promise from the intro as stated.
3. Show both side by side. Flag the gap.

If the pitch and the intro don't match, one of them is wrong. Usually the intro drifted during revision and needs to catch up to what the piece became.

## Evidence Check

For each major claim, ask: what is this backed by?

| Support type | Verdict |
|--------------|---------|
| Personal experience the writer lived through | Strong — let it stand |
| A linked study, dataset, or named source | Strong — let it stand |
| An expert quote or named practitioner | Strong — let it stand |
| A specific named example (company, person, moment) | Strong — let it stand |
| "Studies show…" / "experts agree…" / "many people say…" without specifics | Weak — flag |
| Only the writer's authority, when the writer isn't established on this specific thing | Weak — flag |
| Nothing — assertion floats free | Weak — flag |

It's fine to write about something the writer isn't an expert in. It's not fine to make claims without support and rely on confident tone to carry them. Flag floating claims explicitly — the writer can add evidence, soften the claim, or remove it.

## Output Options

### Full Report (default for comprehensive review)

```
## Developmental Edit Report

### Opening
🔴 **Critical:** [Issue]
[Why it matters]

🟡 **Consider:** [Issue]
[Explanation]

### [Section Name]
🟢 **Minor:** [Issue]
[Explanation]

---

Where would you like to start?
```

**Severity:**
- 🔴 Critical — Piece doesn't work without fixing
- 🟡 Consider — Would strengthen significantly
- 🟢 Minor — Nice to have

### Quick Assessment (for faster feedback)

```
## Quick Dev Edit

**Working well:** [2-3 things]

**Needs attention:**
1. [Main issue + why]
2. [Second issue + why]

**Overall:** [Ready for line edit / Needs another pass / Major restructure needed]
```

Use quick assessment for shorter pieces, time pressure, or when invoked as part of a composition.

## Collaborative Fixing

After the report:
1. Writer picks where to start (or skip straight to line edit)
2. Offer fixes: "Here's how I'd address this—[fix]. Want me to make this change?"
3. Writer accepts, revises themselves, or skips
4. Repeat as needed

**Don't force resolution of every issue.** The writer decides what matters.

## Flexibility

- Writer can ask for specific focus ("Just look at the structure")
- Writer can skip dev-edit entirely
- Writer can run multiple passes
- Can be combined with other feedback (nemesis read, objections) for stress testing

## For Agents

When invoked programmatically:
- Accept draft as input
- Return structured assessment (issues + severity)
- Include "overall readiness" indicator
- Can be composed with other review skills

## Lessons

[Skill-specific lessons will be added here as they're captured]

View saved version →

---
name: cw-draft
description: Turn an outline, notes, source material, or partial prose into a complete draft while preserving the writer's voice, thesis ownership, and source provenance. Use when the user asks to draft a piece or section.
---

# Draft

## Purpose

Turn the available material into usable prose. The goal is a complete draft the writer can revise, not a performance of the drafting process.

## Load Context And Sources

Read `../../references/context-contract.md`. Load the relevant writer, project, publication, platform, assignment, and source context before drafting.

- Treat maintained voice and project guides as authoritative.
- If creating a new local draft file in a project initialized by `cw-setup-project`, use `drafts/<piece-slug>/` and keep its versions plus support material together. In other projects, follow the existing artifact convention and do not impose `drafts/` retroactively.
- Keep factual claims attached to their sources.
- Mark model-added assumptions or unsupported bridges instead of inventing certainty.
- Preserve the writer's thesis; surface a materially different thesis for judgment before rebuilding the piece around it.

## Your Approach

**Default:** Section by section with casual check-ins.
**Alternative:** All at once if the writer prefers or the piece is short.

Use judgment about pacing. Some writers want to see each section before moving on. Others want a complete draft to react to. Ask if unclear, or infer from context.

## Silent Enforcement

Produce usable copy that reflects the active context without narrating every rule being applied.

### Voice
Apply the maintained writer and project voice guidance. Use plugin defaults only for gaps:
- Conversational but authoritative
- Accessible without dumbing down
- Confident with nuance
- Intellectually generous

### Sentence Structure
Apply the active syntax and diction guidance:
- Vary sentence length
- Active voice preferred
- Concrete nouns and verbs
- Front-load important information

### Things to Avoid
Check the active voice and style files for the writer's specific list. Common fallback checks:
- Hedge words, weasel words
- Throat-clearing, echo statements
- Cliché metaphors, empty intensifiers
- Jargon without explanation

### AI Pattern Removal
Silently apply `cw-ai-check` in its required order: preserve source boundaries and epistemic temperature before removing lexical or sentence-pattern residue. User sees clean copy only.

## Structural Moves

Apply these where appropriate (not as requirements):

| Element | Guidance |
|---------|----------|
| **Hook** | Select from Hook Arsenal based on content |
| **Thesis** | Ensure it appears clearly and is arguable |
| **Promise** | Opening should create anticipation |
| **Transitions** | Natural bridges, avoid academic connectors |

**Hook Arsenal** (use judgment):
- The Already-Happened, The Paradigm Flip, The Visceral Moment
- The Time Stamp, The Failed Expert, The Future Glimpse
- The Contradiction, The Vulnerability Drop
- The Stats Shock, The Definitional Challenge

## Section Handoffs

Keep it casual:
- "Here's the intro—thoughts before I move on?"
- "Section 2 is ready. Take a look?"
- "Here's the conclusion. How does it land?"

**Don't block on approval.** If the writer doesn't respond to a handoff, continue. They can circle back.

## Flexibility

- Writer can skip sections ("Just draft the middle")
- Writer can provide partial content ("Here's the intro I wrote, draft the rest")
- Writer can request rewrites mid-stream
- Writer can draft themselves and use this skill for specific sections

## Completion

The requested drafting work is done when:
- All sections exist in some form, OR
- Writer says it's done

Offer the next pass only when it would help. Do not force a full pipeline after finishing the requested draft.

## For Agents

When invoked programmatically:
- Accept outline (any depth) as input
- Apply all silent enforcement
- Return complete draft
- Flag any sections that felt weak or uncertain

## Lessons

[Skill-specific lessons will be added here as they're captured]

View saved version →

---
name: cw-emergent
description: Compose existing Compound Writing skills and runtime capabilities for open-ended writing outcomes that no single skill covers, such as cross-draft analysis, source-to-outline comparison, or multi-pass revision.
---

# Emergent Capability

## Purpose

Enable the agent to handle requests that don't map directly to a specific skill by composing primitives and existing skills into novel solutions.

This is what makes the system agent-native: the ability to figure out how to accomplish an outcome, not just execute predefined workflows.

Read `../../references/context-contract.md` before composing a multi-artifact workflow. Respect the active project's source-of-truth files, provenance, destinations, and approval rules.

## When This Applies

Use emergent composition when:
- Request spans multiple drafts or files
- Request requires pattern analysis across the body of work
- Request combines multiple types of feedback
- No single skill handles the full request
- User describes an outcome, not a command

Do NOT use when:
- A skill directly handles the request (use the skill)
- The request is a simple file operation
- The user invokes a specific command

## The Composition Loop

When a request doesn't map to a skill:

1. **Understand the outcome**
   - What does success look like?
   - What would the user see/know when this is done?

2. **Identify capabilities needed**
   - What artifacts must be found, read, compared, or revised?
   - What maintained context or connected source must be loaded?
   - What draft, source, or destination operations are authorized?
   - What analysis operations? (compare, analyze voice, check AI)

3. **Identify skills that help**
   - Which existing skills apply to parts of the request?
   - Can skills be chained for the full solution?

4. **Compose a solution**
   - Chain primitives and skills together
   - Plan the sequence of operations

5. **Execute in a loop**
   - Work through the plan
   - Adapt if something unexpected comes up
   - Continue until outcome achieved or blocked

6. **Report results**
   - Summarize what was found/done
   - Offer next steps if applicable

## Example Requests and Approaches

| Request | Primitives | Skills | Approach |
|---------|-----------|--------|----------|
| "Compare voice in my last 3 drafts" | Find and read the relevant pieces | `cw-voice-check` | Analyze each against the same live voice sources, then compare |
| "Find patterns in my hooks" | Find and read the relevant pieces | — | Extract openings, classify moves, and report with examples |
| "What objections keep coming up?" | Read the relevant drafts and reviews | `cw-objections` | Compare repeated resistance and distinguish writer pattern from topic pattern |
| "Am I overusing certain transitions?" | Search the requested corpus | `cw-transition` | Count, inspect context, and report only meaningful repetition |
| "Make this article better" | Load the draft, brief, voice, and sources | `cw-dev-edit`, `cw-line-edit`, `cw-ai-check` | Diagnose, revise, then validate |
| "Help me finish this piece" | Inspect the active artifact and open decisions | varies | Route to the smallest unfinished outcome |
| "Cross-reference notes with outline" | Read both authoritative artifacts | — | Compare claims, examples, sources, and omissions |

## Judgment: When to Compose

**Good candidates for composition:**
- "Compare X across Y" — Analysis pattern
- "Find patterns in Z" — Discovery pattern
- "Check if A matches B" — Validation pattern
- "Make this better" — Improvement pattern
- "Help me with X" (vague) — Needs investigation first

**Not good candidates:**
- "Give me a hook" → Use /cw-hook directly
- "Does this bury the lede?" → Use /cw-bluf directly
- "Check my voice" → Use /cw-voice-check directly
- "Run the nemesis read" → Use /cw-nemesis directly

## The Ultimate Test

Can the agent accomplish tasks you didn't explicitly design for?

**Example:** User asks "Cross-reference my meeting notes with my task list and tell me what I've committed to but haven't scheduled."

This wasn't designed as a feature. But if the agent can:
1. Read the meeting notes
2. Read the task list
3. Extract commitments from notes
4. Compare against tasks
5. Report the gaps

...then it's agent-native.

## Failure Modes

If composition fails:
- **Missing capability or access:** Report what is unavailable
- **Skill not available:** Suggest manual alternative
- **Too complex:** Break into smaller requests
- **Ambiguous:** Ask for clarification

Never say "I don't have a feature for that" when composition could work.

## Reporting Results

When composition completes, report:
1. What was requested
2. What was done (briefly)
3. What was found/achieved
4. Suggested next steps (if applicable)

Keep reports focused on insights, not process details.

## Lessons

[Skill-specific lessons will be added here as they're captured]

View saved version →

---
name: cw-final-pass
description: Run a publication-readiness check on a nearly complete piece and deliver a clear ready, almost-ready, or needs-work verdict. Use when the user asks for a final pass, quality gate, or pre-publication check.
---

# Final Pass

## Purpose

The final quality check before publishing. This is the last look before it ships.

Read `../../references/context-contract.md` and load the relevant project, publication, platform, source, and destination requirements before judging readiness.

Do not interpret a passing verdict as permission to publish, send, schedule, or move files.

## What to Check

### Content Quality
Questions to consider (weight by piece type):
- Does the piece deliver on its promise?
- Is the thesis clear and supported?
- Do the sections earn their place?
- Are stakes visible?
- Is there a clear transformation or takeaway?
- **Evidence check** — every major claim backed by experience, named source, or specific example? Any floating assertions?
- **Provenance check** — citations, links, quotes, and attribution still support the claims they are attached to? Any model-added assumption presented as sourced fact?
- **20-second pitch** — can the piece be explained in 20 seconds, and does that explanation match the intro's stated thesis/promise?

### Surface Polish
- Typos and spelling
- Punctuation consistency
- Formatting consistency
- Awkward phrasing

### Speed-Read Test

Read only:
- Headline
- First two sentences
- Subheads
- First sentence of each section
- Conclusion

Does it still make sense and compel? A skim-reader should:
- Feel the problem quickly
- Want the answer
- Understand what they'll gain

### The 20-Second Pitch Test

Generate a 20-second pitch of the piece (what it actually argues, end to end). Pull the thesis/promise from the intro as stated. Compare them.

If they don't match, the intro drifted — usually because the piece evolved during revision and the opening didn't catch up. Flag it before publishing. The fix is almost always rewriting the intro to match where the piece actually lands.

## Output

### Assessment Options

**Full verdict (default):**
```
## ✅ Ready

What's working:
- [Strength #1]
- [Strength #2]
- [Strength #3]

Ship it.
```

or

```
## ⚠️ Almost Ready

Minor issues to consider:
1. [Issue] — [Quick explanation]

These won't break the piece, but fixing them would help.
Fix them, or ship as-is?
```

or

```
## ❌ Needs More Work

Issues that should be addressed:
1. **[Issue #1]** — [Why it matters]
2. **[Issue #2]** — [Why it matters]

Want to fix these together?
```

**Quick check (for fast turnaround):**
```
## Quick Final Check

✅ Content delivers on promise
✅ Surface polish clean
⚠️ One note: [minor issue]

Ready to ship.
```

## Your Judgment

**Pass/fail is a recommendation, not a gate.** The writer decides when to publish. Your job is to surface anything they might have missed and give them confidence (or appropriate caution).

- Some pieces are ready with minor imperfections
- Some writers want perfection; others want "good enough"
- Context matters: blog post vs. flagship article vs. quick take

## Collaborative Fixing

If there are issues:
1. List them clearly
2. Offer: "Want to fix these together?"
3. Work through collaboratively
4. Re-check if requested

**Don't force multiple passes.** One thorough check is usually enough.

## For Agents

When invoked programmatically:
- Accept draft as input
- Return pass/fail assessment with reasoning
- Include list of any issues found
- Can be composed with other quality checks (ai-check, voice-check)

## Lessons

[Skill-specific lessons will be added here as they're captured]

View saved version →

---
name: cw-hemingway
description: Cuts ruthlessly. Flags every adjective, adverb, and unnecessary word. Demands you kill your darlings.
---

# Hemingway

## Purpose

Strip your writing to the bone. This skill reads like Hemingway edited—hunting for every word that doesn't earn its place, every adjective that weakens instead of strengthens, every sentence that could be shorter.

Use this when:
- Your draft feels bloated or overwritten
- You want to tighten prose without losing meaning
- You're drowning in modifiers
- A section feels slow and you're not sure why

## Invocation

- `/cw-hemingway [text]` — Cut the provided text ruthlessly
- `/cw-hemingway` — System asks "What needs cutting?"
- Works on selection if provided, asks if not

## What Gets Cut

| Target | Why It Dies |
|--------|-------------|
| **Adverbs** | "She said quietly" → "She whispered." The verb should do the work. |
| **Adjectives** | Most weaken the noun they modify. One precise noun beats a decorated one. |
| **Qualifiers** | "Very," "really," "quite," "somewhat," "rather" — all cowardice. |
| **Redundancies** | "Completely finished," "past history," "free gift" — say it once. |
| **Throat-clearing** | "It's important to note that," "What I mean is," "In other words" — just say it. |
| **Passive voice** | "The ball was thrown by him" → "He threw the ball." |
| **Inflated phrases** | "At this point in time" → "now." "Due to the fact that" → "because." |
| **Dead metaphors** | "Think outside the box," "low-hanging fruit" — if you've heard it, cut it. |

## The Hemingway Test

For every word, ask:
1. Does this word change the meaning?
2. If I cut it, would the reader miss it?
3. Is there a shorter way to say this?

If the answer to all three is no, the word dies.

## Output Format

```
## The Cut

**Original word count:** [X]
**New word count:** [Y]
**Words killed:** [Z] ([percentage]%)

---

### The Trimmed Version

[Rewritten text with all cuts applied]

---

### What Died and Why

| Cut | Reason |
|-----|--------|
| "[original phrase]" → "[replacement]" | [Brief reason] |
| "[word]" — deleted | [Brief reason] |

---

### The Darlings

[Any phrases that were good but still had to go—the ones that hurt to cut]

---

Want me to cut deeper, or is this too lean?
```

## Principles

- **Shorter is almost always better** — When in doubt, cut.
- **Nouns and verbs, not adjectives and adverbs** — Strong writing is built on things and actions.
- **One idea per sentence** — If a sentence does two things, make it two sentences.
- **No word is sacred** — Even the ones you love. Especially those.
- **Clarity over style** — A plain sentence that communicates beats a pretty one that doesn't.

## The Iceberg

Hemingway's theory: the dignity of movement of an iceberg is due to only one-eighth of it being above water. What you leave out strengthens what remains. Trust the reader to fill the gaps.

## Lessons

[Skill-specific lessons will be added here as they're captured]

View saved version →

---
name: cw-hitchcock
description: Reviews for suspense and tension. Where's the bomb under the table? What does the reader know that someone doesn't?
---

# Hitchcock

## Purpose

Find and heighten the suspense in your writing. This skill thinks like Hitchcock directed—looking for the bomb under the table, the dramatic irony, the tension that keeps readers leaning forward.

Use this when:
- A section feels flat and you're not sure why
- You have conflict but it's not landing
- You want to make readers need to keep reading
- You're burying the tension instead of building it

## Invocation

- `/cw-hitchcock [text]` — Review the provided text for suspense opportunities
- `/cw-hitchcock` — System asks "What scene or section needs more tension?"
- Works on selection if provided, asks if not

## The Bomb Under the Table

Hitchcock's famous distinction:

**Surprise:** Two people are talking. A bomb explodes. The audience is shocked for 10 seconds.

**Suspense:** The audience sees the bomb under the table. The characters don't know. They talk about baseball for five minutes. The audience is in agony the entire time.

Suspense comes from what the reader knows that someone in the story doesn't—or from what the reader fears might happen.

## Techniques for Building Tension

| Technique | How It Works | Example |
|-----------|--------------|---------|
| **The Plant** | Show the bomb early. Let it tick. | Mention the deadline in paragraph one. Let it loom. |
| **Dramatic Irony** | Reader knows something the subject doesn't. | "He thought he had it figured out. He was wrong." |
| **The Ticking Clock** | Add time pressure, real or implied. | "She had three days to decide." |
| **The Gap** | Create distance between want and have. | Show what's at stake before showing the obstacle. |
| **The Delay** | Slow down at the moment of highest tension. | Linger on the moment before the reveal. |
| **The False Relief** | Let them think it's resolved. Then don't. | "Finally, everything was in place. Then the email arrived." |
| **The Zoom** | Get granular when stakes are high. | Small details magnify big moments. |

## What to Look For

- **Buried stakes** — Is the tension hidden at the end instead of built from the start?
- **Missing countdown** — Is there urgency? Does the reader feel time passing?
- **No information gap** — Does the reader know something someone doesn't?
- **Even pacing** — Are you rushing past the tense moments?
- **Resolved too early** — Did you release the tension before the payoff?

## Output Format

```
## Suspense Analysis

**Current tension level:** [Low / Medium / High]

**The bomb under the table:** [What's at stake that could be made more visible?]

---

### Tension Opportunities

**1. [Location/moment in the text]**

What's there now: [Description]

The Hitchcock move: [How to build tension here]

---

**2. [Location/moment]**

[Same format]

---

### Suggested Revision

[Rewritten version with tension heightened]

---

**What changed:**
- [How tension was built]

Does this feel earned, or too manipulative?
```

## Principles

- **Show the bomb** — Don't hide the stakes. Let them build dread.
- **Delay the release** — The longer you can sustain tension, the bigger the payoff.
- **Information is power** — Control what the reader knows and when.
- **Pacing is tension** — Slow down when it matters most.
- **Earned beats manipulative** — Tension should come from real stakes, not cheap tricks.

## When Suspense Doesn't Apply

Not every piece needs Hitchcock. Explanatory essays, tutorials, and some personal essays work better with clarity than tension. Use this skill when the piece has:
- A problem being solved
- A transformation or change
- A decision with consequences
- A conflict (internal or external)

## Lessons

[Skill-specific lessons will be added here as they're captured]

View saved version →

---
name: cw-hook
description: Generate 3 hook options tailored to your content. Invoke with /cw-hook or /cw-hook [topic/context].
---

# Hook

## Purpose

Generate 3 hook options from the Hook Arsenal, tailored to the content at hand.

Read `../../references/context-contract.md` and resolve available audience context, including optional `AUDIENCE.md` or a named shared guide. The explicit assignment audience takes precedence; missing audience context does not block the task.

## Invocation

- `/cw-hook [context]` — Generate hooks for the specified topic/piece
- `/cw-hook` — System asks "What's the piece about?" then generates options

## The Hook Arsenal

| Hook Type | What It Does | Use When |
|-----------|--------------|----------|
| **The Already-Happened** | Past-tense revelation of surprising outcome | The result proves your point |
| **The Paradigm Flip** | Challenges assumed truth | Presenting contrarian takes |
| **The Visceral Moment** | Sensory detail + emotion | Personal discovery pieces |
| **The Time Stamp** | Specific date/time that changed everything | Career pivots, revelations |
| **The Failed Expert** | Smart person + spectacular failure | Teaching through mistakes |
| **The Future Glimpse** | Present tense description of coming reality | Trend pieces, predictions |
| **The Contradiction** | Two true things that shouldn't both be true | Complex, nuanced topics |
| **The Vulnerability Drop** | Admission of struggle/weakness | Building trust and connection |
| **The Stats Shock** | Number that reframes everything | Data-driven arguments |
| **The Definitional Challenge** | Redefining familiar concept | Thought leadership pieces |

## How to Generate

1. **Analyze the content** — What's the piece about? What's the core tension or insight?

2. **Select 3 hook types** that fit the content best. Consider:
   - What material does the writer have? (personal story? data? contrarian take?)
   - What's the emotional register of the piece?
   - What will resonate with the target audience?

3. **Generate one hook per type** — Each should be 1-3 sentences that could open the piece.

4. **Present all three** with the hook type labeled.

## Output Format

```
## Hook Options

### Option 1: The [Hook Type]
[1-3 sentence hook]

### Option 2: The [Hook Type]
[1-3 sentence hook]

### Option 3: The [Hook Type]
[1-3 sentence hook]

---

Which resonates? Or want me to try a different approach?
```

## Principles

- **Concrete over abstract** — Start with a specific moment, fact, or detail
- **Tension is magnetic** — Create a question or contradiction
- **Earn the right to their time** — The hook must justify why they should keep reading
- **No throat-clearing** — Get to the interesting part immediately

## Lessons

[Skill-specific lessons will be added here as they're captured]

View saved version →

---
name: cw-interview
description: Draw out and organize the writer's own thinking without supplying meaning, stakes, or an argument for them. Invoke with /cw-interview or when the user has a specific idea they want to explore before outlining.
---

# Interview

## Purpose

Draw out the writer's observations, experiences, questions, language, and reasoning so they have enough writer-owned material to build an outline.

The interview is an elicitation stage, not a developmental edit. Its job is to help the writer hear and extend their own thinking—not to decide what their material means.

## Goal

Can the writer describe what they want to explore, and is there enough material to take a useful next step? A thesis is welcome when the writer already has one, but the interview must not force exploratory material into an argument prematurely.

## Authorship Boundary

The writer owns the meaning, claim, stakes, tension, framing, and intended transformation.

- Capture before interpreting. Ask for the writer's account before offering any synthesis.
- Reflect in the writer's own language whenever possible. Do not upgrade tentative remarks into confident claims.
- Do not invent connective tissue: significance, causality, conflict, reader stakes, lessons, or implications the writer has not named.
- Do not label a thread promising, important, surprising, central, or revealing as a way of steering the conversation.
- When two statements may connect, ask whether the writer sees a connection instead of asserting one.
- When the material is ambiguous, preserve the ambiguity or ask about it. Do not resolve it on the writer's behalf.
- Keep model inference visibly separate from confirmed writer intent. Never fold a tentative interpretation into the interview notes as though the writer said it.
- Do not propose frames, theses, arcs, or meanings unless the writer asks for possibilities or agrees to a synthesis step.

## Core Elements to Explore

Use judgment about which apply to this piece:

| Element | What to Capture | Required? |
|---------|-----------------|-----------|
| **Subject/question** | What does the writer want to examine or understand? | Always |
| **Core claim/insight** | What does the writer currently believe or suspect, in their words? | When they have one |
| **Writer's stake** | Why do *you* care about this? | Usually |
| **Reader's stake** | Why should *they* care? What's at risk or possible for them? | Usually |
| **Evidence/examples** | What supports this? Stories, data, experiences? | Depends on piece |
| **Audience** | Who is this for? What do they currently believe? | When unclear |
| **Transformation** | What does the writer want readers to think, feel, or do differently? | Only when the writer intends persuasion |

**Judgment call:** Not every piece needs every element, and the interviewer should not manufacture missing ones. A personal essay may remain interested in a question rather than proving a claim. Record absent elements as open questions only when they will matter to the next stage.

## Your Approach

### Phase 1: Elicit

Use open, minimally leading questions to draw out material:
- "What do you want to write about?"
- "What have you noticed?"
- "What happened, specifically?"
- "Which part do you want to stay with?"
- "What feels unresolved to you?"
- "What do you currently think about it?"
- "What experience or evidence is shaping that view?"
- "What words would you use for it?"

Follow the writer's energy and explicit priorities. If they linger on something, ask whether they want to go deeper there. Do not treat enthusiasm as proof of the piece's meaning. Note gaps and open questions without filling them.

### Phase 2: Reflect or Synthesize (By Permission)

Before interpreting the material, ask: "Would you like me to reflect back what I've heard, help generate possible frames, or keep asking questions?"

- **Reflect:** Summarize only what the writer explicitly said. Attribute it: "You've said [X] and [Y]." Ask what is missing or wrong.
- **Generate possibilities:** Offer multiple tentative options, label them as model-proposed, and name the writer's words or evidence each draws from. Do not present one as the hidden meaning of the material.
- **Keep asking:** Continue elicitation without repeatedly trying to close the conversation into a thesis.

Useful neutral prompts include:
- "You mentioned [X] and [Y]. Do you see a connection between them?"
- "Do you already have a claim you want to make, or are you still exploring the question?"
- "Which of your ideas feels closest to what you mean?"

## Quality Checks (Use When Appropriate)

Apply the **New, True, Useful** test only after the writer has articulated a claim and wants help testing it:
- **New:** Is this well-trodden territory, or is there a fresh angle?
- **True:** Does the logic hold? Does the writer have evidence?
- **Useful:** Will readers care?

Do not introduce pushback by default during elicitation. If the writer asks for challenge or agrees to a claim-testing pass, surface concerns as questions and keep the writer's answer authoritative:
- "Would it help to test this against a possible objection?"
- "What evidence would make you revise or qualify this claim?"

## Completion

**Stop when the writer wants to move on or there is enough writer-owned material to build a useful 10% outline.** This is a judgment call:
- Can the writer name the subject, question, or claim they want to pursue?
- Is there enough concrete material to begin organizing?
- Are missing meanings, stakes, or connections clearly preserved as open questions rather than silently inferred?

If yes → ready for outline.
If no → keep eliciting or flag gaps without filling them.

**Writer can override at any time.** If they say "let's move on," move on. Missing elements become open loops for the outline stage.

## For Agents

When invoked as part of a larger workflow, this skill returns:
- Writer-confirmed subject, question, or claim
- Key elements captured in the writer's language
- Open loops/gaps (if any)
- Model-proposed interpretations, only when requested and clearly labeled
- Readiness assessment for outline stage

## Lessons

[Skill-specific lessons will be added here as they're captured]

View saved version →

---
name: cw-line-edit
description: Revise prose at the sentence and word level while preserving voice, meaning, source accuracy, and useful weirdness. Use when the structure is stable and the user asks for a line edit, polish, tightening pass, or usable rewrite.
---

# Line Edit

## Purpose

A deep, rigorous pass for sentence- and word-level issues. This catches what Draft enforcement missed, what the user added, or cleans up drafts developed elsewhere.

Read `../../references/context-contract.md` and load the relevant writer, project, publication, and platform voice sources before editing.

## Entry Points

This skill can be invoked:
1. After completing a developmental edit
2. Directly by the user with any draft

## What to Check

Apply a thorough review for:

### Sentence Mechanics
- Vary sentence length
- Active voice (flag passive constructions)
- Concrete nouns and verbs
- Front-load sentences with important information

### Things to Avoid
- Hedge words ("perhaps," "maybe," "somewhat," "might")
- Correlatives and negative parallelisms ("not X, but Y")
- Throat-clearing (delayed starts, excessive setup)
- Echo statements (saying the same thing multiple ways)
- Weasel words ("some people say," "studies show" without citation)
- Empty intensifiers ("very," "really," "extremely")
- Cliché metaphors
- Hyperbolic or overblown claims
- Inflated language
- Technical, business, or academic jargon

### AI Tells
Run `cw-ai-check` in its required order. When source material or earlier human drafts are available, scan for structural overcompletion before running the full lexicon. Flag and fix:
- Stock openers ("In today's fast-paced world...")
- AI-scent vocabulary (delve, leverage, utilize, pivotal, crucial)
- Formal transitions (moreover, furthermore, additionally)
- Vague authority claims ("Studies show..." without citation)
- Formulaic closers ("In conclusion...")
- Structural patterns ("No X. No Y. Just Z.")
- All patterns in the ai-check lexicon

### Voice Alignment
Check the prose against the active writer and project voice sources. Do not make a sentence cleaner by erasing intent, humor, rhythm, priors, or a distinctive aside.

### Meaning And Provenance
- Preserve the scope and certainty of factual claims.
- Do not sever citations or source attribution from the claims they support.
- Mark unsupported or model-added claims instead of smoothing them into authority.

## Output

### Part 1: Revised Draft

Deliver the full draft with all fixes applied. Present it ready-to-use.

### Part 2: Summary of Changes

After the revised draft, summarize material changes in order of appearance. Do not bury the usable copy beneath a diagnostic preamble.

```
---

## Changes Made

1. **Sentence:** "[Original sentence]"
   **Problem:** [What was wrong]
   **Suggested Fix:** [What was changed]

2. **Sentence:** "[Original sentence]"
   **Problem:** [What was wrong]
   **Suggested Fix:** [What was changed]

[Continue for all changes...]
```

## Reverting Changes

After presenting the summary, note: "Let me know if you want to revert any of these."

Writer can revert by:
- **Number:** "Revert #3 and #7"
- **Natural language:** "Put back the original for the one about hedging"

System handles either format.

## Transition

When writer is satisfied, offer to move to **Final Pass**: "Ready for a final pass before publishing?"

## Lessons

[Skill-specific lessons will be added here as they're captured]

View saved version →

---
name: cw-mom
description: Reads your writing from a loving, supportive, but not-quite-getting-it perspective. Surfaces where you've lost the general reader.
---

# Mom

## Purpose

Read your writing from the perspective of someone who loves you and wants to be supportive—but doesn't really get what you're talking about. This skill finds the places where you've assumed too much, used insider language, or lost the non-expert reader.

Use this when:
- You're too close to your subject to see what's confusing
- You're writing for a general audience but live in a specialized world
- You want to find the "smile and nod" moments
- You need to check if the piece actually lands for normal humans

## Invocation

- `/cw-mom [text]` — Read the provided text from Mom's perspective
- `/cw-mom` — System asks "What should I read as your mom?"
- Works on selection if provided, asks if not

## Who Is Mom?

Mom is:
- Supportive and wants you to succeed
- Smart, but not in your field
- Willing to try, but will glaze over if you lose her
- Too polite to say "I don't understand"
- Going to focus on the parts she connects with emotionally
- Going to skim the parts that feel like homework

Mom is not:
- Stupid (don't condescend)
- Your target audience (but if she's totally lost, so are many readers)
- Going to push back on your argument (she trusts you)

## What Mom Notices

| What She Does | What It Means |
|---------------|---------------|
| "That's nice, honey" | She has no idea what you just said but loves you anyway |
| "Wait, what's a [term]?" | Jargon without explanation |
| "Who is that?" | You referenced someone she's never heard of |
| "Why does this matter?" | You forgot to connect to human stakes |
| "This is the good part!" | The moment you stopped being abstract and told a story |
| "You lost me in the middle" | Your structure wandered |
| "What's the point again?" | Your thesis is buried or unclear |
| Eyes glazing over | Too technical, too long, or too inside-baseball |

## The Mom Test

For each section, ask:
1. Would Mom know what this means without Googling?
2. Would Mom care about this, or is it only interesting to insiders?
3. Would Mom remember this tomorrow, or would it blur together?
4. Would Mom forward this to her book club, or just say "that's nice"?

## Output Format

```
## The Mom Read

**Overall Mom reaction:** [One sentence capturing how Mom would feel after reading this]

**The part she'd actually remember:** [What would stick with her]

---

### Smile and Nod Moments

These are the parts where Mom would nod supportively while having no idea what you're talking about:

**1. "[Passage]"**

Mom thinks: "[Her internal monologue]"

The problem: [What's actually confusing or insider-y]

---

**2. "[Passage]"**

[Same format]

---

### The Parts Mom Loved

[Genuine moments of connection—where you wrote for humans, not experts]

---

### To Win Mom Over

1. [Most important fix to reach general readers]
2. [Second fix]
3. [Third fix]

---

**The question Mom would ask at dinner:** "[The thing she'd bring up because she didn't quite get it]"
```

## Principles

- **Mom is smart, not expert** — She can follow complex ideas if you explain them. She can't follow jargon.
- **Emotional beats land** — Stories about people, stakes, and feelings reach Mom. Abstractions don't.
- **One insider reference is fine** — A whole paragraph of them loses her.
- **If Mom's lost, so are others** — She's a proxy for the general reader, not an outlier.
- **Don't fix everything for Mom** — Some pieces aren't for her. But know what you're choosing.

## When to Use This

- General audience pieces (newsletters, popular essays, mainstream publications)
- When you've been deep in a topic and need fresh eyes
- When you're worried you've disappeared up your own expertise
- Before publishing something you want to be widely shared

## When to Ignore Mom

- Technical writing for practitioners
- Academic work for specialists
- Pieces where insider knowledge is the point
- When your actual audience would find "Mom-proofing" condescending

## Lessons

[Skill-specific lessons will be added here as they're captured]

View saved version →

---
name: cw-nemesis
description: Reads your writing through the meanest, least-charitable lens. Challenges every claim, questions every assumption, pokes holes in the logic. Use for later drafts when you want hard feedback.
---

# Nemesis Read

## Purpose

Give your writing the meanest, least-charitable read possible. This skill adopts the perspective of a hostile reader who assumes the worst interpretation, questions everything, and actively looks for ways to dismiss or attack the piece.

Use this when:
- You think you're done and want to stress-test the piece
- You're in later drafts and want hard feedback
- You're writing something controversial or high-stakes
- You want to find weaknesses before your critics do

## Invocation

- `/cw-nemesis [text]` — Give the provided text the meanest read
- `/cw-nemesis` — System asks "What would you like me to tear apart?"
- Works on selection if provided, asks if not

## The Nemesis Reader's Mindset

This reader:
- Assumes you're wrong until proven otherwise
- Takes the least charitable interpretation of every sentence
- Actively looks for reasons to stop reading
- Has no patience for vagueness, hedging, or filler
- Notices every logical gap, unsupported claim, and weak transition
- Is allergic to clichés, buzzwords, and empty phrases
- Thinks your examples are cherry-picked and your evidence is thin
- Suspects you don't actually know what you're talking about

## What Gets Attacked

| Category | What the Nemesis Notices |
|----------|--------------------------|
| **Claims** | Unsupported assertions, overgeneralizations, weasel words ("some people say"), false authority |
| **Logic** | Leaps in reasoning, missing steps, contradictions, circular arguments, false dichotomies |
| **Evidence** | Cherry-picked examples, anecdotes posing as data, correlation/causation confusion, outdated sources |
| **Clarity** | Vague language, jargon without explanation, sentences that require re-reading, buried points |
| **Voice** | Self-importance, hedging that undermines authority, trying too hard, fake humility |
| **Structure** | Sections that don't earn their place, meandering, burying the lede, weak transitions |

## Output Format

```
## The Nemesis Read

**Overall impression:** [One brutal sentence about how this reads to a hostile audience]

**The biggest problem:** [The single most damaging weakness]

---

### Line-by-line attacks

> "[Quoted text]"

[Attack: What's wrong with this and why a hostile reader would dismiss it]

[Repeat for each vulnerable passage]

---

### What you need to fix

1. [Most critical fix]
2. [Second most critical]
3. [Third most critical]

---

**The honest question:** [A hard question you need to answer before this piece works]
```

## Principles

- **No kindness** — This skill exists to be harsh. Softening defeats the purpose.
- **Specific attacks** — Vague criticism ("this is weak") is useless. Point to exact words and explain why they fail.
- **Assume bad faith** — Read every sentence as if the reader is looking for an excuse to stop.
- **Find the fatal flaw** — Every piece has one. Find it.
- **Be the critic, not the helper** — Don't offer solutions. Just expose problems. Other skills can help fix them.

## When NOT to Use This

- Early drafts (you'll kill the idea before it develops)
- When you're already demoralized
- When you need encouragement to finish
- For pieces that are intentionally experimental or exploratory

## Lessons

[Skill-specific lessons will be added here as they're captured]

View saved version →

---
name: cw-objections
description: Surfaces counterarguments, objections, and "yeah buts" a reader might have to your argument. Helps you anticipate and address resistance before it derails the piece.
---

# Objections

## Purpose

Surface the counterarguments, objections, and "yeah buts" that readers might have to your argument. This skill thinks like a skeptical but fair-minded reader—someone who's willing to be convinced but has genuine questions and pushback.

Use this when:
- You're making an argument and want to anticipate resistance
- You're not sure what's controversial about your claim
- You want to find the weak points in your reasoning
- You need to decide which objections to address in the piece

## The Outsider Stance

Read as someone who **doesn't know you and doesn't read your publication.** No goodwill, no shared context, no in-group shorthand. They picked this up cold.

This is the key calibration: regular readers extend credit because they trust you. The outsider doesn't. Find every place the writing leans on credit the outsider hasn't extended — claims floating without evidence because your voice carries them, in-group references, names and frameworks dropped without explanation, confidence substituting for citation.

If the piece works for someone who already trusts you but collapses for someone who doesn't, that's worth surfacing.

## Invocation

- `/cw-objections [text]` — Surface objections to the argument in the provided text
- `/cw-objections` — System asks "What argument should I find objections to?"
- Works on selection if provided, asks if not

## Types of Objections

| Type | What the Reader Thinks | Example |
|------|------------------------|---------|
| **Factual** | "That's not actually true" | "Actually, the research shows the opposite" |
| **Experiential** | "That doesn't match my experience" | "I've tried this and it didn't work for me" |
| **Scope** | "This doesn't apply to my situation" | "This might work for startups but not enterprises" |
| **Mechanism** | "I don't see how that follows" | "Why would doing X lead to Y?" |
| **Tradeoff** | "What about the downsides?" | "Sure, but what do you lose by doing this?" |
| **Alternative** | "There's a better way" | "Wouldn't it be easier to just..." |
| **Moral** | "That feels wrong" | "This seems manipulative / unfair / short-sighted" |
| **Practical** | "That's unrealistic" | "Who has time for that?" |

## How This Skill Works

1. **Identify the core claims** — What are you actually arguing?
2. **Find the assumptions** — What must be true for your argument to hold?
3. **Surface objections** — Where would a thoughtful reader push back?
4. **Rate severity** — Which objections are fatal if unaddressed?
5. **Suggest responses** — How might you handle the strongest objections?

## Output Format

```
## Objection Analysis

**Your core argument:** [One-sentence summary of what you're claiming]

**Key assumptions:**
- [Assumption 1]
- [Assumption 2]
- [etc.]

---

### Objections (ranked by severity)

**1. [Objection title]** — Severity: High/Medium/Low

> The reader thinks: "[What the skeptical reader is thinking]"

Why this matters: [Why this objection could derail your argument]

Possible response: [How you might address this—or note if you can't]

---

**2. [Objection title]** — Severity: High/Medium/Low

[Same format]

[Continue for all significant objections]

---

### Recommendation

**Must address:** [Which objections you need to handle in the piece]

**Can acknowledge:** [Which objections you can nod to briefly]

**Can ignore:** [Which objections aren't worth your time]
```

## Principles

- **Steel-man the objections** — Present the strongest version of each counterargument, not a strawman
- **Be specific about who objects** — "Some readers" is vague. "Readers who have tried and failed at X" is useful.
- **Distinguish fatal from minor** — Not all objections need addressing. Know which ones will lose the reader.
- **Objections aren't attacks** — This skill thinks like a skeptic who wants to be convinced, not a hater
- **Some objections reveal scope** — An objection might mean you need to narrow your claim, not defend it

## The Difference from /cw-nemesis

- `/cw-nemesis` attacks the writing itself—the craft, clarity, voice, and execution
- `/cw-objections` attacks the argument—the claims, logic, evidence, and reasoning

Both find weaknesses. They just look in different places.

## Lessons

[Skill-specific lessons will be added here as they're captured]

View saved version →

---
name: cw-onboarding
description: Begin or refresh the separate VOICE.md, STYLE.md, and optional AUDIENCE.md guides in a writer's durable writing home from a short conversation, existing writing, or maintained context. Use during first-run writing-home setup and when the user wants to define, calibrate, import, or update voice, style, or audience context.
---

# Onboarding

Create the smallest useful first version of the writer's durable voice and style guides. Help them start; do not make them finish an exhaustive profile before they can write.

## Load Existing Context First

Read `../../references/context-contract.md`. Inspect the current workspace for maintained identity, voice, preference, and project-style files before asking questions.

- If authoritative context already exists, summarize it and ask only about genuine gaps.
- If the user needs a writing-home folder, resolve the target and run `cw-setup-project` first so `VOICE.md`, `STYLE.md`, `examples/`, and `drafts/` exist together.
- Do not auto-trigger because either guide is sparse or because a legacy `TASTE.md` is absent.
- Do not duplicate global guidance into the writing home unless a local override is needed.
- Do not overwrite an existing profile without explicit approval.

## Keep The Destinations Distinct

Route each rule by what it governs:

- `VOICE.md` answers **How should the sentences sound?** Put syntax, diction, and tone here, including cadence, rhythm, register, punctuation, verbal tics, sentence moves, and phrases to favor or avoid.
- `STYLE.md` answers **What must the article do, contain, and prove?** Put argument, evidence, article structure, substantive standards, audience promise, openings, endings, formats, and publication-readiness criteria here.

- Optional `AUDIENCE.md` answers **Who are we writing for, and what may engage them?** Put reader situations, prior knowledge, wants, interests, resistance, and source evidence here. Follow a maintained shared source named by the project; do not create a local duplicate.

Use this classification test:

- A rule that changes wording, sentence construction, or tone belongs in `VOICE.md`.
- A rule that changes the claim, support, organization, or readiness standard of the article belongs in `STYLE.md`.
- Reader knowledge belongs in the governing `AUDIENCE.md`; the writing's obligations to that reader remain in `STYLE.md`. Split mixed feedback without duplicating it across guides.

Use the writing home's `VOICE.md` and `STYLE.md` as its portable context. Use an existing global voice guide when it is already the maintained authority. Tell the user where each class of guidance will live when the destination is not already obvious.

## Begin Or Refresh Audience Context

When the user requests audience setup or calibration, resolve the audience source through the context contract. Use an existing shared guide when named; otherwise create `AUDIENCE.md` in the established writing home if useful. The optional starter is `defaults/project-template/AUDIENCE.md` relative to the plugin root. Missing audience context never blocks the immediate writing task or triggers onboarding by itself.

Start with known situations, knowledge, interests, and resistance. Ask only consequential gaps. Label reader evidence, positioning, explicit writer intent, and editorial hypotheses; keep source, date, and scope. Do not invent a demographic profile, assume personal stakes, or turn a publication's intended relationship into measured reader behavior. The assignment can select a narrower reader without changing the shared guide.

Make the guide legible to both the writer and the agent: begin with a short reader portrait, distinguish wants (outcomes or experiences sought) from needs (what may help the reader get there), and connect them to what the writing can offer. Include a possible hero's journey when useful: starting situation, call, obstacles, guidance, trials, and what the reader carries back. Label it as an editorial model unless supported by reader evidence; do not force a transformation story or invent motives to fill its stages. Close with concise instructions for applying the guide to a piece, with sources and uncertainties easy to find.

## Interview

Ask only what the existing context does not answer. During first-run setup, ask one to three conversational questions at a time or invite the writer to share representative samples. Useful dimensions include:

- syntax, diction, tone, sentence architecture, rhythm, and recurring line-level moves;
- the writer's argument standards and recurring substantive moves;
- evidence requirements, article structures, openings, endings, and publication-readiness criteria;
- what the writer makes, for whom, and with what reader promise;
- verbal tics, structural anti-patterns, and AI tells to avoid;
- workflow preferences that materially affect the project.

Ask conversationally and follow the user's energy. Six fixed questions are not a requirement.

For a quick first version, capture a few high-signal rules in each guide and leave unknowns open. If the writer arrived with an immediate task, calibrate from that work where possible instead of pausing for a separate interview.

## Calibrating A Voice Profile From Examples

When the writer supplies a fresh sample set or asks to refresh `VOICE.md`, make the deliverable a **sentence-level vocal score**, not a writing philosophy.

First, compare the examples for repeatable line-level behavior. Capture only patterns that recur across the sample set or that the writer explicitly confirms. Separate patterns that belong to a particular publication, assignment, or subject from portable voice guidance.

The resulting `VOICE.md` should normally cover:

- the overall sentence-level sound in a few concrete sentences;
- cadence and sentence-length variation;
- syntax and recurring sentence turns, such as accumulation, qualification, correction, release, or fragments;
- diction and register, including words, constructions, and generic phrasing to avoid;
- punctuation, emphasis, and paragraph-level texture only when they affect sentence sound;
- humor, self-awareness, or verbal tics when they are evidenced in the samples;
- practical revision instructions that help an agent align a draft without imitating the examples.

Do **not** put curiosity, intellectual rigor, uncertainty, point of view, reader relationship, argument, evidence, structure, or publication standards in this profile unless the instruction changes the wording, syntax, cadence, or tone of a sentence. Route article standards to `STYLE.md` or the brief, and durable reader knowledge to the resolved `AUDIENCE.md` when one is maintained.

For every material voice rule, attach either a short sourced excerpt or a concise description of the observed move. Full examples belong in `examples/`; published language is directional and non-reusable. Avoid broad labels such as “warm,” “smart,” or “authentic” unless they are translated into observable writing behavior.

## Write The Profile

- Capture only specific, evidenced preferences.
- Keep syntax, diction, and tone in `VOICE.md`; keep argument, evidence, article structure, substantive standards, and publication readiness in `STYLE.md`.
- Phrase guidance as actionable rules, not personality adjectives alone.
- Put full exemplars in `examples/`; use short excerpts in the guides only when they clarify a rule.
- Mark published examples as directional and non-reusable.
- When writing from examples, make rules operational: tell the agent how a sentence gathers, turns, qualifies, lands, or sounds false.
- Include a concise revision checklist for preserving the writer's sentence-level sound without copying their phrases or inventing personal detail.
- Show the proposed content before changing a high-authority or shared file when the governing rules require approval.

## Migrate TASTE.md

When a legacy `TASTE.md` exists, classify its rules into `VOICE.md`, `STYLE.md`, and an authorized audience guide when useful. Flag mixed or conflicting rules for judgment. Do not keep adding new guidance to `TASTE.md`, and do not delete it without explicit approval.

## Handoff

Confirm:

- what was captured in voice, style, and audience context when requested;
- where the guides and supporting examples were saved, including any shared audience source;
- which gaps remain intentionally open;
- how future Compound Writing skills will load the writing home.

View saved version →

---
name: cw-outline
description: Organize interview material into a detailed structure using the 10%/30% framework. Invoke with /cw-outline or after completing an interview.
---

# Outline

## Purpose

Organize material into a structure the writer approves before drafting. Goal: no surprises at the draft stage.

## What Makes a Good Outline

| Element | Description |
|---------|-------------|
| **Logical architecture** | The overall structure makes sense for the argument |
| **Clear hierarchy** | Reader can tell what's a main point vs. supporting point |
| **Flow** | Ideas connect within sections and between sections |
| **Gaps visible** | Open loops and questions are surfaced, not hidden |

## Your Approach

Organize material logically; writer reshapes from there. Don't impose templates or force a particular form. Match the outline depth to the piece complexity.

**Beats describe what happens in the piece, not what rhetorical function must happen there.** A beat may be a scene, claim, example, question, piece of evidence, objection, explanation, turn, or something else the material requires. Do not assign beats a predetermined sequence such as setup → complication → implication, and do not pad an outline to produce a fixed number of beats.

## The 10%/30% Framework

A guideline, not a requirement. Use your judgment about how much structure this piece needs.

### 10% Outline (Light Structure)

**What it contains:**
- Thesis statement
- The major beats or moves

**When it's enough:** Short pieces, simple arguments, experienced writers who just need a skeleton.

**When to go deeper:** Complex arguments, lots of evidence, writer wants more detail before drafting.

### 30% Outline (Full Structure)

A 30% outline contains the complete shape of the piece in compressed form. It identifies the major sections, the point of each section, the material it will contain, and how the sections connect. It is not 30% of the prose.

**When to use:** Longer pieces, complex topics, or when the writer wants to see everything before drafting.

### Standard 30% Outline Template

Use this as the standard shape, adapting the number of sections and beats to the material.

```markdown
# 30% Outline

## Introduction

**Main point:**
What the introduction needs to establish.

**Hook:**
How the piece opens.

**Beats:**

- [Beat]
- [Beat]
- [Additional beats as needed]

**Thesis:**
The central claim or controlling idea of the piece.

**Promise:**
What the piece promises to give the reader.

---

## Section: [Working title]

**Main point:**
What this section establishes.

**Transition:**
The move from the previous section into this one.

**Beats:**

- [Beat]
- [Beat]
- [Additional beats as needed]

**Supporting material:**

- [Scene, example, evidence, quotation, research, or other material]
- [Additional supporting material as needed]

**Bottom line:**
What the section leaves established before the piece moves on.

---

## Additional sections as required

Repeat the section structure according to the needs of the piece. The number and nature of the beats should follow the material.

---

## Conclusion

**Main point:**
What the conclusion needs to leave with the reader.

**Transition:**
The move from the final body section into the conclusion.

**Beats:**

- [Beat]
- [Beat]
- [Additional beats as needed]

**Kicker:**
How the piece ends.

---

## Open Loops

- [ ] Missing material:
- [ ] Claim or idea to resolve:
- [ ] Structural question:
- [ ] Transition to work out:
- [ ] Decision requiring the writer's judgment:
```

The labels are structural prompts, not quotas or a hidden narrative formula:

- **Thesis** governs the whole piece; **main point** identifies what an introduction, section, or conclusion establishes.
- **Transition** names the move between sections. It does not need to be polished prose.
- **Beats** capture the sequence of material. Their number, kind, and function follow the piece.
- **Supporting material** keeps scenes, examples, evidence, quotations, and research visible without requiring every section to use every kind.
- **Bottom line** records what a body section leaves established.
- **Kicker** records how the piece ends without requiring a restatement of the thesis.

## Quality Checks (Apply Judiciously)

These are questions, not gates:
- Does the thesis still hold up?
- Does each section earn its place?
- Are there obvious gaps in evidence or logic?
- Do the sections flow into each other?

Surface issues constructively. Don't block progress—flag concerns and let the writer decide.

## Open Loops

Track questions and gaps that emerge:

```
## Open Loops

- [ ] Need example for section 3
- [ ] Counterargument to address?
- [ ] Ending still unclear
```

**Open loops don't block progress.** They're carried forward for the writer to resolve during drafting or address later. Some will resolve naturally; others need explicit attention.

## Iteration

Present the outline → get feedback → iterate. Keep it conversational:
- "Here's a 10% outline—does this capture the shape?"
- "Want me to expand this to 30%, or is this enough to draft from?"
- "I flagged a few open loops. Want to resolve them now or carry them forward?"

## Completion

The outline is ready when the writer feels ready to draft. This might be:
- A tight 10% for a quick piece
- A detailed 30% for something complex
- Something in between

**Don't gatekeep.** If the writer says "let's draft," move to draft.

## For Agents

When invoked as part of a larger workflow, this skill returns:
- The outline (at whatever depth was appropriate)
- Open loops (if any)
- Readiness assessment for draft stage

## Lessons

[Skill-specific lessons will be added here as they're captured]

View saved version →

---
name: cw-panel
description: Convene a panel of reviewers to analyze a draft from multiple perspectives, then synthesize their feedback into consensus findings, productive tensions, and prioritized recommendations.
---

# Panel Review

Convene multiple reviewer agents to analyze a piece, then synthesize their perspectives into a unified analysis that surfaces consensus, tensions, and priorities.

## When to Use

- Before publishing something high-stakes
- When you want multiple perspectives without running reviewers manually
- When you suspect different aspects need different kinds of attention
- When you're too close to the work to know what feedback you need

## The Flow

### 1. Load Context

Read `../../references/context-contract.md`, the draft, and any available brief, outline, project instructions, feedback, or status metadata to understand:
- **piece_type** — essay, argument, explainer, narrative, etc.
- **audience** — general, specialist, insider
- **stage** — early draft, revision, near-final
- **goals** — if stated

Infer missing context from the draft and request. Do not require `.status.yaml`.

### 2. Propose Panel

Based on piece context, propose 4-6 reviewers.

**Selection heuristics:**

| Signal | Suggests Including |
|--------|-------------------|
| Personal/reflective content | sedaris, mom |
| Argumentative content | nemesis, vonnegut |
| Technical or jargon-heavy | reader, mom, hemingway |
| Narrative structure | vonnegut, hitchcock, sorkin |
| Feels slow or wandering | sorkin |
| Feels bloated | hemingway |
| High-stakes / pre-publish | nemesis, hemingway |
| Cold read, uncertain audience response, or missing setup | reader |
| General audience | reader |
| Non-expert accessibility | mom |
| Early stage | vonnegut (fundamentals) |
| Late stage | hemingway, nemesis (polish, stress-test) |

**Check the active writer and project context for:**
- Preferred reviewers
- Reviewers to exclude
- Past patterns

**Present the proposal:**

```
## Proposed Panel

**Draft:** [title or slug]
**Context:** [piece_type] for [audience], currently at [stage]

Based on this context, I recommend:

| Reviewer | Why |
|----------|-----|
| **[name]** | [One-line rationale tied to piece context] |
| **[name]** | [Rationale] |
| **[name]** | [Rationale] |
| **[name]** | [Rationale] |

**Not including:**
- **[name]** — [Why not relevant for this piece]
- **[name]** — [Why not]

Proceed with this panel, or adjust?
```

Wait for user confirmation or modification.

### 3. Run Reviewers in Parallel

Once confirmed:

1. Run all selected reviewers in parallel when the active platform supports parallel workers and the user's explicit panel request authorizes them.
   - On Claude, use the matching `compound-writing:review:*` subagent when available.
   - On Codex or another runtime, use the matching reviewer skill or an isolated worker with that lens.
   - Give each reviewer the draft plus the minimum relevant context.
   - Each reviewer returns its standard prose output independently.
2. Collect all outputs

**Example spawning pattern:**

```
[Spawn in parallel:]
- Task: nemesis-reviewer with draft
- Task: mom-reviewer with draft
- Task: hemingway-reviewer with draft
- Task: sorkin-reviewer with draft
```

### 4. Run Synthesizer

Use the panel-synthesizer agent when available; otherwise synthesize the outputs directly. Include:
- The draft
- Draft context from the active brief, instructions, metadata, or careful inference
- All reviewer outputs (full prose)

**Synthesizer prompt should include:**

```
## Draft

[full draft text]

## Context

piece_type: [from context or inference]
audience: [from context or inference]
stage: [from context or inference]
goals: [from context if present]

## Reviewer Outputs

### nemesis-reviewer
[full output]

### mom-reviewer
[full output]

### hemingway-reviewer
[full output]

[etc.]
```

### 5. Return Synthesis

Present the synthesizer's output to the user.

## Panel Size

- **Minimum:** 3 reviewers (fewer than this, just run them individually)
- **Recommended:** 4-5 reviewers (good coverage without redundancy)
- **Maximum:** 8 reviewers (all of them—full stress test)

## Available Reviewers

| Reviewer | Subagent Type | Focus |
|----------|---------------|-------|
| nemesis | compound-writing:review:nemesis-reviewer | Logical rigor, unsupported claims |
| reader | compound-writing:review:reader-reviewer | First-time reading experience, missing setup, trust and friction |
| mom | compound-writing:review:mom-reviewer | Accessibility, jargon, general reader |
| hemingway | compound-writing:review:hemingway-reviewer | Economy, cutting, word-level |
| sedaris | compound-writing:review:sedaris-reviewer | Specificity, humor, voice |
| sorkin | compound-writing:review:sorkin-reviewer | Pacing, momentum, forward motion |
| vonnegut | compound-writing:review:vonnegut-reviewer | Story fundamentals, structure |
| hitchcock | compound-writing:review:hitchcock-reviewer | Tension, suspense, stakes |

## Default Panels by Piece Type

If the active context names a piece type, use it as a starting point:

| piece_type | Default Panel |
|------------|---------------|
| `essay` / `personal` | reader, sedaris, vonnegut, sorkin |
| `argument` / `opinion` | nemesis, vonnegut, hemingway, reader |
| `explainer` / `technical` | reader, mom, hemingway, sorkin |
| `narrative` / `story` | vonnegut, hitchcock, sorkin, sedaris |
| `newsletter` | reader, sorkin, hemingway |

Always adjust based on specific signals in the draft.

## Example Session

```
User: /cw-panel

Agent: I'll convene a panel to review your draft. Let me read it and check the status.

[Reads draft]
[Loads the brief and project context: personal essay, general audience,
 revision stage, goal: "make it land emotionally without being sappy"]

## Proposed Panel

**Draft:** father-and-the-sea
**Context:** essay for general audience, revision stage

Based on the context—personal essay aiming for emotional impact without
sentimentality—I recommend:

| Reviewer | Why |
|----------|-----|
| **mom** | General audience check. Will flag where you lose non-insiders. |
| **sedaris** | Personal material that might benefit from more specificity or humor. |
| **sorkin** | Revision stage—check if pacing is tight. |
| **nemesis** | The emotional claims need to be earned, not asserted. |

**Not including:**
- **hemingway** — The prose reads clean; economy isn't the issue here
- **hitchcock** — Not a tension-driven piece
- **vonnegut** — Structure is solid; this needs polish not fundamentals

Proceed with this panel, or adjust?

User: Add hemingway actually, I think it might be overwritten

Agent: Adding hemingway. Running the panel now.

[Spawns 5 reviewer agents in parallel]
[Collects outputs]
[Spawns panel-synthesizer with draft + context + all outputs]

## Panel Synthesis

**Panel:** nemesis, hemingway, mom, sedaris, sorkin
**Piece context:** essay for general audience, revision stage, goal: emotional
impact without sappiness

---

### Consensus Findings

| Issue | Flagged By | Recommendation |
|-------|------------|----------------|
| Opening two paragraphs are slow | sorkin, hemingway, nemesis | Cut or restructure—start closer to the boat |
| "He taught me everything" is unearned | nemesis, sedaris | Show what he taught, don't declare it |
| Section 3 gets abstract | mom, sorkin | Ground it in a specific moment |

---

### Productive Tensions

**Tension: The fishing gear paragraph**

> "His tackle box was a museum of failures—rusted lures from the '70s, a reel
> that hadn't worked since Reagan, hooks that had never caught anything but
> his own thumb."

| Cut it | Keep it |
|--------|---------|
| **hemingway:** 47 words that could be 15. "His tackle box held decades of failure" does the job. | **sedaris:** This is the most alive moment in the piece. The specific details are doing real work. |

**What's at stake:** The piece aims for emotional impact without sappiness.
Specific, wry details (sedaris) might be the path there. But if they slow
momentum, they work against the goal.

---

### Unique Insights

- **sedaris:** "There's a joke hiding in the part about him never admitting he
  was wrong. You're circling it but won't commit."
- **nemesis:** "Your ending asks the reader to feel something you haven't set
  up. The 'I finally understood' move is unearned."

---

### Recommended Priorities

1. **Restructure the opening** — Three reviewers flagged this. Start on the
   boat, not before it.
2. **Earn the ending** — The emotional payoff needs setup. Show what you
   finally understood through a scene, not a declaration.
3. **Decide on the tackle box** — Genuine tension. Your call based on what
   you're optimizing for.

---

### The Hard Question

> What specifically did you learn from him that you couldn't have learned from
> anyone else? Multiple reviewers noted you assert the relationship's importance
> without showing what made it irreplaceable.
```

## Error Handling

**If a reviewer fails to spawn:**
- Note which reviewer is missing
- Proceed with available outputs
- Mention the gap in synthesis

**If the draft has no metadata:**
- Infer what you can from the draft and request.
- State only assumptions that affect the panel or verdict.
- Do not create a status file merely to run the review.

**If user provides no draft:**
- Ask for the draft path or slug to load
- Or ask them to paste the draft

For tensions that deserve another round, offer `cw-debate`; do not automatically spend the extra time and context.

## Lessons

[Skill-specific lessons will be added here as they're captured]

View saved version →

---
name: cw-promise
description: Generate 3 promise options that create anticipation for what's to come. Invoke with /cw-promise or /cw-promise [topic/context].
---

# Promise

## Purpose

Generate 3 promise options that create anticipation and launch the reader into the rest of the piece.

Read `../../references/context-contract.md` and resolve available audience context, including optional `AUDIENCE.md` or a named shared guide. The explicit assignment audience takes precedence; missing audience context does not block the task.

## Invocation

- `/cw-promise [context]` — Generate promises for the specified topic/piece
- `/cw-promise` — System asks "What's the piece about?" then generates options

## What Makes a Promise Work

A promise creates anticipation and momentum. It should achieve several of these:

### Core Functions
- **Creates appetite** — Makes readers hungry for what you're about to reveal
- **Establishes stakes** — Shows what's at risk or what's possible
- **Sets expectations** — Helps readers know what kind of journey they're on
- **Builds trust** — Shows you have something worth their time
- **Generates momentum** — Propels them into the rest of the piece

### Essential Ingredients (weave in several)
- **Transformation potential** — Not just information transfer but actual change
- **Earned authority** — Why you're the right guide for this journey
- **Specific enough to trust** — Concrete without being constraining
- **Urgency without panic** — Why now matters, but not manipulative
- **Emotional resonance** — Connect to what readers actually care about
- **Practical value** — What they'll be able to do/see/understand differently

### Forms It Might Take
- A glimpse of the destination without giving away the path
- A confession of what it cost you to learn this
- A preview of the framework or lens you'll share
- A question that reframes everything
- A challenge to conventional thinking
- An invitation into discovery
- A map of the territory ahead
- A "what if" that opens possibility

### Quality Checks
- Does it make you want to keep reading?
- Is it honest about what's coming?
- Does it feel like an invitation rather than a sales pitch?
- Would you feel satisfied if the piece delivered on this?
- Does it match the energy and tone of what follows?

## How to Generate

1. **Analyze the content** — What's the payoff? What will the reader gain?

2. **Select 3 approaches** that fit. Consider:
   - What would make the reader lean in?
   - What's the honest value proposition of this piece?
   - What transformation is possible?

3. **Generate one promise per approach** — Each should be 1-3 sentences.

4. **Present all three** with a brief note on the approach.

## Output Format

```
## Promise Options

### Option 1: [Brief description of approach]
[1-3 sentence promise]

### Option 2: [Brief description of approach]
[1-3 sentence promise]

### Option 3: [Brief description of approach]
[1-3 sentence promise]

---

Which creates the right anticipation? Or want me to try something different?
```

## What to Avoid

- Overpromising transformation you can't deliver
- Vague promises that could apply to any piece
- Manipulative urgency tactics
- Claims without credibility
- Pure information transfer without perspective shift

## Lessons

[Skill-specific lessons will be added here as they're captured]

View saved version →

---
name: cw-reader
description: Review copy as an intended reader encountering it for the first time, with no access to the writer's unstated context. Identify confusing language, missing setup, assumed knowledge, broken expectations, trust-eroding or off-putting moments, and points where the reader may stop. Use for cold reads, fresh-eyes reviews, first-time-reader perspectives, reader-journey checks, or feedback on what feels confusing, missing, alienating, or hard to follow.
---

# Reader

Read the copy from the perspective of an intended reader encountering it for the first time.

Report the experience of moving through the piece in order. Do not silently use the writer's notes, sources, or project knowledge to resolve gaps that the copy itself leaves open.

## Establish The Reader

Read `../../references/context-contract.md` and use the explicit request, brief, or project context to identify the intended audience.

Use that context only to establish who the reader is and what the piece is trying to do. Judge the copy based on what appears on the page.

Use an optional `AUDIENCE.md` or named shared guide to establish plausible prior knowledge, not to fill missing explanations from private writer context. The explicit assignment audience takes precedence.

If no audience is named and no maintained audience context applies, read as an intelligent, interested first-time reader with no specialist knowledge beyond what the copy signals.

Do not invent a detailed persona or impose preferences unrelated to the intended audience.

## Make A Cold Pass

Read the piece once, from beginning to end, before proposing fixes.

Track:

- What the opening leads the reader to expect
- What the reader understands the piece to be about
- Where a sentence or reference requires rereading
- Where necessary context arrives too late or never arrives
- Where the copy assumes knowledge, agreement, or goodwill it has not earned
- Where tone, framing, repetition, or overclaiming creates resistance
- Where curiosity turns into confusion
- Where the reader's attention is likely to weaken or stop
- Whether the ending delivers the payoff the piece appeared to promise

Preserve the sequence of the reading experience. Information supplied later does not erase confusion created earlier.

## Diagnose The Friction

Distinguish among:

| Reaction | Diagnostic question |
|---|---|
| **I don't understand** | Is a term, reference, relationship, transition, or logical step unclear? |
| **I'm missing something** | What setup or context does the passage require? |
| **I don't believe this yet** | Has the copy asked for more trust than it has earned? |
| **I don't know why I'm here** | Are the stakes, relevance, or direction unclear? |
| **I feel pushed away** | Does the tone feel condescending, presumptuous, self-important, hostile, or exclusionary? |
| **I'm losing interest** | Has the piece become repetitive, abstract, digressive, or slow? |
| **I expected something else** | Did the piece create and then abandon a promise? |

Distinguish deliberate mystery from accidental confusion. Do not demand explanations that the intended audience would already possess.

## Output

```markdown
## First-Time Reader Report

**Reading as:** [Intended or inferred audience]

**What I think this piece is saying:** [Cold summary based only on the copy]

**Overall first impression:** [How the piece feels on first contact]

### The Reading Experience

Move through the piece in order. For each meaningful point of friction:

> "[Exact passage]"

**Reader reaction:** [What the reader thinks or feels at this moment]

**What causes it:** [Confusing language, missing setup, broken expectation, tone, assumed knowledge, etc.]

**Severity:** [Stops the read / Causes a stumble / Worth noticing]

### What Seems Missing

- [Information, setup, definition, transition, evidence, or payoff the reader needs]
- [Additional missing element]

### What May Put The Reader Off

- [Specific tone, framing, presumption, or trust problem]
- [Additional friction]

Omit this section when nothing is meaningfully off-putting.

### What Works On First Contact

- [Passage, idea, image, or structural move that immediately lands]
- [What gives the reader confidence or keeps them moving]

### Fix First

1. [Highest-priority repair]
2. [Second repair]
3. [Third repair]

**The question I still have:** "[The most important unresolved reader question]"
```

## Principles

- Stay inside the first-time reading experience.
- Treat the intended audience as intelligent.
- Quote the copy precisely rather than giving generic feedback.
- Do not let later context retroactively repair an earlier stumble.
- Separate confusion, disagreement, disbelief, boredom, and alienation.
- Identify the effect on the reader before naming the editorial cause.
- Protect deliberate ambiguity, complexity, and distinctive voice when they reward the reader.
- Diagnose by default. Offer the kind of repair needed, but do not rewrite unless asked.
- Report what works as well as what fails so the writer knows what carries the piece.

## Boundaries

- Use `cw-mom` for a supportive non-expert accessibility read. `cw-reader` is neutral and calibrated to the intended audience, including specialist audiences.
- Use `cw-objections` to challenge claims, logic, evidence, and counterarguments. `cw-reader` reports whether the argument can be followed and trusted on first contact.
- Use `cw-dev-edit` for a comprehensive evaluation of argument, structure, stakes, evidence, and payoff. `cw-reader` stays inside the lived sequence of encountering the copy.

View saved version →

---
name: cw-save
description: Capture a confirmed writing preference, editorial lesson, recurring failure pattern, or workflow improvement in the right durable context file. Use when the user asks to save, remember, codify, or turn a repeated correction into a rule.
---

# Save

Turn a confirmed observation into maintained context so future work can use it. Do not claim memory unless a real file or system is updated.

## Load The Context Contract

Read `../../references/context-contract.md` and inspect the active project's instruction and style files before choosing a destination.

## Classify The Learning

| Learning | Preferred destination |
|---|---|
| Syntax, diction, tone, cadence, register, punctuation, verbal tic, or sentence-construction preference | The governing `VOICE.md` |
| Argument, evidence, article structure, substantive standard, audience promise, format, or publication-readiness criterion | The governing `STYLE.md` |
| Confirmed reader situation, knowledge, interest, want, resistance, or audience research finding | The resolved `AUDIENCE.md`, including a named shared source; retain source, date, and scope |
| Repeated editorial failure | Relevant guardrail or review reference |
| Reusable workflow improvement | Workflow or architecture file |
| Piece-specific decision or open loop | The active draft, notes, or project status artifact |

Never save durable learning into an installed plugin/cache copy. Do not append lessons to a skill's `SKILL.md` merely because the skill was active.

If a legacy `TASTE.md` is still present, route new learning to `VOICE.md`, `STYLE.md`, or the governing `AUDIENCE.md` and offer migration. Do not delete or archive `TASTE.md` without explicit approval.

When one correction mixes sentence craft and substantive standards, split it into two atomic rules. Do not duplicate the combined rule across both files.

## Decide Whether It Should Generalize

Distinguish:

- an explicit enduring preference;
- a repeated pattern supported by several examples;
- a one-off choice for this piece;
- an inference that still needs confirmation.

If the user explicitly says to save an enduring preference, proceed once the destination is clear and permitted. If the lesson is inferred, show the proposed rule and ask the user to confirm before making it durable.

For audience learning, a piece-specific assumption stays with the assignment. Do not promote positioning or an editorial inference to observed reader behavior. A shared audience guide may affect multiple publications; preserve its scope and update it only within the user's authorization. Follow the existing shared source rather than creating a competing local copy.

## Write Precisely

1. Read the destination file before editing.
2. Add or revise the narrowest relevant rule.
3. Preserve existing user-authored context, examples, and avoid duplicate guidance.
4. Record the mechanism or consequence, not only a vague preference.
5. Keep examples fresh and non-copyable when the rule concerns voice.

## Confirm

Report the exact rule captured and the file or system updated. If a higher-authority destination requires approval, provide the proposed wording and wait instead of pretending it was saved.

View saved version →

---
name: cw-scribe
description: Route open-ended writing work through the smallest useful Compound Writing workflow. Use when the user wants to start, continue, finish, or improve a piece and has not named a more specific skill.
---

# Scribe

Act as the orchestration layer for Compound Writing. Orient to the writer's actual context, identify the live artifact and desired outcome, then compose only the skills needed to get there.

## Find The Writer's Starting Point

Read `../../references/context-contract.md` before substantial work. Follow its authority order, project routing, provenance, destination, and write-safety rules.

At the first meaningful Compound Writing interaction, inspect the request, supplied material, current workspace, and maintained context before choosing a route.

- Treat an existing writing workspace, maintained voice or style context, or useful live artifact as a real starting point even when the Compound Writing scaffold is absent.
- If the user brings a draft, notes, sources, an active workspace, or enough context to begin, do the immediate writing work. Do not block on setup or a calibration interview. Offer to strengthen durable context only when it would materially improve future work.
- If there is no established writing context and no useful artifact to work from, briefly explain the benefit of one writing home: it keeps how the writer sounds, what their writing needs to do, examples, and drafts together so future sessions can start with less re-explaining.
- Guide that writer through one simple setup without requiring them to know the skill catalog. Resolve the target folder first, then route to `cw-setup-project` and begin `cw-onboarding` for `VOICE.md` and `STYLE.md`.

Do not create files until the destination is explicit or safely resolved from the user's request. Do not present multiple homes or a project system during normal first use. Another self-contained folder remains an optional manual capability only when the user explicitly asks for it later.

Treat `TASTE.md`, `context.md`, `published/`, and `.status.yaml` as legacy or workspace-specific surfaces, not requirements.

Load the optional `AUDIENCE.md` or shared audience guide named by project instructions when the task depends on reader context. The assignment's explicit audience wins over shared defaults. Missing audience guidance does not trigger setup or block work. Route an explicit request to establish audience context to `cw-onboarding`; do not add a local guide when a shared source already serves it.

## Route By Outcome

Choose the smallest route that fits the request:

| User state or outcome | Route |
|---|---|
| First meaningful interaction with no writing home or useful artifact | Brief orientation, resolve the target, `cw-setup-project`, then `cw-onboarding` |
| Explicitly asks for another self-contained writing folder | `cw-setup-project`, then optional `cw-onboarding` |
| Wants to establish or refresh audience context | `cw-onboarding`, reusing the governing audience source |
| No idea yet | `cw-brainstorm` |
| Has a live idea and needs material | `cw-interview` |
| Needs the point or reader promise sharpened | `cw-thesis`, `cw-promise` |
| Needs the most important idea or real opening found and placed | `cw-bluf` |
| Has notes and needs structure | `cw-outline` |
| Has an outline or partial draft and needs prose | `cw-draft` |
| Needs argument, structure, stakes, or evidence fixed | `cw-dev-edit` |
| Structure is stable and prose needs revision | `cw-line-edit` |
| Needs a first-time-reader or fresh-eyes cold read | `cw-reader` |
| Sounds generic or machine-smoothed | `cw-ai-check`, `cw-voice-check`, `cw-tracks` |
| Needs publication, project, or format standards | Load the active `STYLE.md`, brief, template, or maintained workflow |
| Needs a publication-readiness decision | `cw-final-pass` |
| Needs pressure from multiple perspectives | `cw-objections`, a named lens, `cw-panel`, or `cw-debate` |

The familiar sequence remains available:

```text
cw-brainstorm -> cw-interview -> cw-outline -> cw-draft -> cw-dev-edit -> cw-line-edit -> cw-final-pass
```

Treat it as a map, not a gate. Skip resolved stages and jump backward when the material reveals a deeper problem.

## Start The Work

1. Identify the requested outcome and whether there is a useful artifact or established writing context.
2. Locate the active artifact: supplied text, named file, current draft, notes, source room, outline, or destination document.
3. Load the relevant voice, workspace, assignment, and source context.
4. Handle first-run setup only when the starting-point check shows it is needed.
5. State the route briefly when it includes several meaningful passes.
6. Begin. Ask a question only when a missing answer would materially change the work and cannot be inferred safely.

Do not lead with a tour of every feature. The user came to write, not admire the plumbing.

## Compose Skills Deliberately

- Use one skill when one skill can finish the job.
- Put diagnosis before revision and validation after revision.
- Run `cw-dev-edit` before line-level passes when the argument or structure is unstable.
- Apply publication, project, and format requirements from the active `STYLE.md`, brief, template, or workflow while drafting or revising.
- Keep source provenance attached throughout the workflow.
- Preserve the writer's ownership of thesis changes, major reframes, and consequential cuts.

Common compositions:

- **Lede repair:** `cw-bluf` -> targeted structural revision -> optional `cw-line-edit`
- **Muscular revision:** `cw-dev-edit` -> revision -> `cw-line-edit` -> `cw-ai-check`
- **Pre-publication:** `cw-dev-edit` when needed -> `cw-ai-check` -> `cw-final-pass`
- **Voice repair:** `cw-voice-check` -> targeted revision -> `cw-ai-check` or `cw-tracks`
- **High-stakes stress test:** `cw-objections` or `cw-panel` -> writer judgment -> targeted revision

## Artifacts And Progress

- Respect the project's existing folder and versioning conventions.
- Do not create a parallel draft workspace by default.
- In a writing home initialized by `cw-setup-project`, create or reuse `drafts/<piece-slug>/` and keep that piece's versions, notes, research, outline, reviews, and related material there.
- In any other existing project, create or reuse one dedicated piece folder in the location its conventions require. Do not impose `drafts/` retroactively.
- Update an existing status file or tracker only when the user asked for progress tracking or the project workflow requires it.
- Name draft iterations `version one`, `version two`, and so on when a named version is needed.
- Put substantial reviewable output in the destination required by the governing workspace; otherwise keep the project-local source of truth.

## Completion

Finish the requested outcome instead of automatically pushing the user into the next stage. Then report:

- what changed or was produced;
- any source, thesis, or editorial uncertainty that still needs judgment;
- any recurring preference or failure pattern worth capturing through `cw-save`.

View saved version →

---
name: cw-sedaris
description: Finds the funny. Looks for moments that could be mined for humor, absurdity, or self-deprecation.
---

# Sedaris

## Purpose

Find the humor hiding in your writing. This skill reads like David Sedaris looking for material—hunting for the absurd, the specific, the self-deprecating, and the painfully relatable moments that could become funny.

Use this when:
- A piece feels too serious or self-important
- You have a personal story that needs levity
- You want to find moments that could land as jokes
- The piece is fine but forgettable

## Invocation

- `/cw-sedaris [text]` — Find humor opportunities in the provided text
- `/cw-sedaris` — System asks "What could use some funny?"
- Works on selection if provided, asks if not

## Where Funny Hides

| Source | What to Look For | Example |
|--------|------------------|---------|
| **Specificity** | Generic kills funny. Exact details create it. | Not "a car" but "a 1987 Dodge Omni with a taped-on side mirror" |
| **Self-deprecation** | The writer as fool, not hero. | Admitting the embarrassing thought you actually had. |
| **Absurd juxtaposition** | High stakes / low stakes collide. | "I contemplated the nature of existence while waiting for my burrito." |
| **The unspoken thought** | What you thought but shouldn't say. | "I smiled and said 'how nice' while calculating how to escape." |
| **Escalation** | Start small, build to ridiculous. | A minor annoyance that spirals into existential crisis. |
| **The callback** | Return to an earlier detail with new meaning. | Plant something odd. Pay it off later. |
| **The undercut** | Build something up, then puncture it. | "It was the most meaningful experience of my life. It lasted eleven minutes." |

## The Sedaris Moves

### 1. Find the Embarrassing Version
What's the less flattering, more honest version of what happened? The version you'd tell a close friend but not your boss?

### 2. Get Weirdly Specific
Replace every generic noun with the actual thing. Not "my childhood home" but "the split-level with the plastic-covered furniture."

### 3. Let Yourself Be the Idiot
Sedaris rarely makes himself the hero. He's the one with the dumb reaction, the petty thought, the irrational fear. That's where the humor lives.

### 4. Find the Contrast
Humor often comes from things that don't belong together. Formal language about informal things. Grand meaning in small moments. Casual tone about serious topics.

### 5. Say the Quiet Part
What did you actually think in the moment? Not the polished version—the real one.

## Output Format

```
## Comedy Notes

**Current humor level:** [Bone-dry / Light touches / Actually funny]

**The best opportunity:** [Where's the richest vein of potential humor?]

---

### Moments to Mine

**1. [Passage or moment]**

What's there: [Description]

The funny version: [How it could be rewritten for humor]

Why it works: [What makes this land]

---

**2. [Passage or moment]**

[Same format]

---

### The Rewrite

[A sample section rewritten with humor added]

---

**What changed:**
- [What techniques were used]

Is this the right tone, or too jokey for this piece?
```

## Principles

- **Funny is specific** — The more precise the detail, the funnier it is. Generalities aren't funny.
- **Self-deprecation beats self-aggrandizement** — Readers don't laugh at heroes. They laugh at fools who are a little too relatable.
- **Timing is everything** — A joke at the end of a paragraph lands differently than one in the middle. The pause before the punchline matters.
- **Don't signal the joke** — No "hilariously," no "funny enough," no "LOL." If it's funny, they'll laugh. If you have to tell them, it's not.
- **Dark is fine** — Sedaris goes dark. The painful and the funny often live in the same place.

## When Humor Doesn't Fit

Not every piece needs jokes. Skip this skill when:
- The subject matter is genuinely tragic and humor would cheapen it
- The piece is technical/instructional and humor would distract
- You're writing for a context where levity undermines credibility

## Lessons

[Skill-specific lessons will be added here as they're captured]

View saved version →

---
name: cw-setup-project
description: Create or initialize a durable writing home with VOICE.md, STYLE.md, examples/, and drafts/. Use when Scribe identifies a first-time writer with no established writing context after resolving the target, or when the user explicitly asks to set up, scaffold, initialize, or migrate a self-contained writing folder.
---

# Set Up A Writing Home

Create one portable folder that can travel independently of the plugin and contains the context and working surfaces Compound Writing needs.

## Resolve The Target

- Use the path or folder name the user supplied.
- If the destination is unclear and choosing it would create the writing home in a materially different place, ask for the path.
- Read existing workspace instructions before writing.
- Never create writing-home files inside the installed plugin or runtime cache.

## Create The Writing Home

Create this exact minimum structure:

```text
writing-home/
├── VOICE.md
├── STYLE.md
├── examples/
│   └── README.md
└── drafts/
    └── README.md
```

Run the bundled creator by resolving it relative to this `SKILL.md`; do not assume the user's working directory is the plugin root:

```bash
python3 "<plugin-root>/skills/cw-setup-project/scripts/create_project.py" "/path/to/writing-home"
```

The script copies the canonical templates from `defaults/project-template/`. It may create a new folder or populate an empty folder. It refuses to modify a non-empty folder by default and never overwrites files.

For an existing folder, inspect it first. If the user explicitly wants the Compound Writing structure added, run:

```bash
python3 "<plugin-root>/skills/cw-setup-project/scripts/create_project.py" "/path/to/writing-home" --add-missing
```

`--add-missing` creates only absent items. Preserve every existing file and convention.

## Optional Audience Guide

When the writer asks to establish audience context and no maintained shared guide is already named, add `--with-audience` to the creator command. For an existing writing home, combine it with `--add-missing` after inspection. This adds the generic `AUDIENCE.md` template without overwriting any existing file.

If a shared audience guide already governs the work, reference that guide from project instructions instead of creating a duplicate. A local `AUDIENCE.md` is optional; do not add one or interrupt writing merely because it is missing. Use the audience resolution rules in `../../references/context-contract.md`.

## Keep The Split Clear

- `VOICE.md` answers: **How should the sentences sound?** Put syntax, diction, and tone here, including cadence, rhythm, register, punctuation, and verbal tics.
- `STYLE.md` answers: **What must the article do, contain, and prove?** Put argument, evidence, article structure, substantive standards, audience promise, and publication-readiness criteria here.
- Optional `AUDIENCE.md` answers: **Who are we writing for, and what may engage them?** Keep reader situations, knowledge, wants, interests, resistance, and their evidence here; use a named shared guide when one exists.
- `examples/` holds curated positive and negative examples. Examples are evidence for the written rules, not rules by themselves.
- `drafts/` holds one folder per piece: `drafts/<piece-slug>/`. Keep that piece's notes, research, outline, draft versions, and reviews together.

Never put argument, evidence, structure, or publication-readiness rules in `VOICE.md`. Never put word choice, sentence construction, cadence, or tone rules in `STYLE.md`. Split mixed feedback into separate rules.

Do not create `TASTE.md`, `context.md`, `published/`, or `.status.yaml` as part of setup.

## Migrate A Legacy Project

When `TASTE.md` exists:

1. Read it with the existing project instructions.
2. Route syntax, diction, and tone rules to `VOICE.md`.
3. Route argument, evidence, article structure, substantive standards, and publication-readiness rules to `STYLE.md`.
4. Route durable reader knowledge to a maintained `AUDIENCE.md` when requested; use an existing shared guide rather than creating a duplicate. Flag mixed or conflicting guidance.
5. Show the migration summary before changing ambiguous or high-authority guidance.
6. Preserve `TASTE.md` until the user explicitly approves its deletion or archival.

## Begin The Guides

After first-run setup, begin `cw-onboarding` so the writer can add a useful first version of both guides from a short conversation, existing writing, or the work already in progress. Do not block use of the writing home on completing either profile.

When the user invoked `cw-setup-project` manually for an additional folder, offer onboarding rather than assuming they want a new profile immediately.

## Handoff

Report the writing-home path, the created surfaces, any optional audience guide or shared source, anything skipped because it already existed, and the next useful step.

Referenced files: 2

View saved version →

---
name: cw-simplify
description: Rewrite complex text in plainer language. Invoke with /cw-simplify or /cw-simplify [paste text].
---

# Simplify

## Purpose

Rewrite something complex in plainer, more accessible language without losing meaning.

## Invocation

- `/cw-simplify [text]` — Simplify the provided text
- `/cw-simplify` — System asks "What section do you want me to simplify?"
- Works on selection if provided, asks if not

## How to Simplify

1. **Identify the core meaning** — What is this actually saying?

2. **Strip jargon** — Replace technical terms with plain equivalents, or define them briefly on first use.

3. **Shorten sentences** — Break long, complex sentences into shorter ones.

4. **Use concrete language** — Swap abstractions for specific examples.

5. **Front-load the point** — Lead with the main idea, then explain.

6. **Preserve precision** — Don't oversimplify to the point of inaccuracy.

## Output Format

```
## Simplified Version

[The rewritten text]

---

**What changed:**
- [Brief note on key simplifications]

Does this capture it? Or did I lose something important?
```

## Principles

- **Short words over long** — "use" not "utilize," "help" not "facilitate"
- **Active over passive** — "We built" not "It was built by us"
- **One idea per sentence** — Break up compound ideas
- **Concrete over abstract** — "a 10% increase" not "significant growth"
- **Reader-first** — Write for someone encountering this idea for the first time

## Simplification Moves

| Complex Pattern | Simplified Version |
|-----------------|-------------------|
| Nominalization (the utilization of) | Verb form (using) |
| Passive voice (was implemented by) | Active voice (we implemented) |
| Jargon (synergize, leverage) | Plain verbs (combine, use) |
| Long sentence with multiple clauses | Multiple short sentences |
| Abstract noun (implementation) | Concrete action (we built) |
| Hedge words (somewhat, perhaps) | Direct statement or cut |

## What to Preserve

- Technical accuracy
- Important nuance
- The writer's voice
- Necessary qualifications

## Lessons

[Skill-specific lessons will be added here as they're captured]

View saved version →

---
name: cw-sorkin
description: Checks pacing and momentum. Is there enough forward motion? Are you walking and talking or standing still?
---

# Sorkin

## Purpose

Check your writing for pacing and momentum. This skill reads like Aaron Sorkin edits—looking for forward motion, urgency, and the feeling that things are happening. Walking and talking, not standing and explaining.

Use this when:
- A piece feels slow but you're not sure why
- Readers are dropping off midway through
- A section feels static or lecture-y
- You need more drive toward the ending

## Invocation

- `/cw-sorkin [text]` — Check pacing and momentum in the provided text
- `/cw-sorkin` — System asks "What feels too slow?"
- Works on selection if provided, asks if not

## The Walk-and-Talk Test

In Sorkin's shows, characters deliver exposition while moving—down hallways, through offices, toward destinations. The motion creates urgency even when they're just explaining things.

In writing, "walking and talking" means:
- Information delivered while something is happening
- Forward momentum built into the structure
- The sense that we're going somewhere, not just sitting

**Standing still:** "Let me explain how the system works."

**Walking and talking:** "The system was already failing when I arrived. By the time I understood why, it was too late to stop it."

## Pacing Problems

| Problem | What It Looks Like | The Fix |
|---------|-------------------|---------|
| **The Stall** | Progress stops for explanation. | Weave exposition into action. |
| **The Lecture** | Writer talks at reader, not with them. | Add questions, stakes, or conflict. |
| **The Meander** | Piece wanders without direction. | Make the destination visible. |
| **The Pile-Up** | Too much happens too fast. | Let key moments breathe. |
| **The Even Pace** | Same rhythm throughout. | Vary sentence length and scene intensity. |
| **The Dead End** | Section ends without pushing forward. | Each section should propel into the next. |

## Techniques for Building Momentum

### 1. The Destination
The reader should always know (or wonder) where this is going. What's the question we're racing toward answering?

### 2. The Propulsion
Each paragraph should push into the next. End on something that demands continuation, not a neat conclusion.

### 3. The Urgency
Why does this matter now? Why can't we slow down? (Even artificial urgency—"I only had three days"—creates drive.)

### 4. The Interruption
Break up long stretches. A short sentence. A question. A new voice. A scene cut. Variety in rhythm is variety in pacing.

### 5. The Delay
Counterintuitively, slowing down at key moments can increase momentum—it builds anticipation. But you have to earn it.

## Output Format

```
## Pacing Check

**Overall momentum:** [Static / Sluggish / Steady / Driving]

**Where it stalls:** [The biggest slowdown]

---

### Section-by-Section

**[Section/paragraph identifier]**
- Pace: [Fast / Medium / Slow]
- Problem: [If any]
- Note: [What's working or not]

[Repeat for each section]

---

### Momentum Killers

1. [Specific passage] — [Why it slows things down]
2. [Specific passage] — [Why it slows things down]

---

### The Rewrite

[Sample section rewritten with better pacing]

---

**What changed:**
- [How momentum was improved]

Does this feel urgent enough, or too rushed?
```

## Principles

- **Momentum is not speed** — A slow section can have momentum if it's building toward something. A fast section can feel static if it's going nowhere.
- **Every section needs a job** — If you can't say what a paragraph does for the piece's movement, cut it.
- **End paragraphs on launch pads** — The last sentence should push the reader into the next paragraph, not let them rest.
- **Vary the rhythm** — Same pace throughout is monotonous. Pulse it: fast, fast, slow, fast.
- **Movement comes from want** — If no one wants anything, nothing happens. Desire creates motion.

## The Sorkin Question

At any point in the piece, can the reader answer: "What are we trying to figure out / get to / understand?"

If not, momentum is dead.

## Lessons

[Skill-specific lessons will be added here as they're captured]

View saved version →

---
name: cw-thesis
description: Generate 3 thesis options tailored to your content. Invoke with /cw-thesis or /cw-thesis [topic/context].
---

# Thesis

## Purpose

Generate 3 thesis options that crystallize the core insight of the piece.

Read `../../references/context-contract.md` and resolve available audience context, including optional `AUDIENCE.md` or a named shared guide. The explicit assignment audience takes precedence; missing audience context does not block the task.

## Invocation

- `/cw-thesis [context]` — Generate theses for the specified topic/piece
- `/cw-thesis` — System asks "What's the piece about?" then generates options

## What Makes a Good Thesis

A thesis should achieve several of these qualities:

### Core Functions
- **Reframes the familiar** — Shows us something we thought we knew from a fresh angle
- **Bridges domains** — Connects ideas that don't usually talk to each other
- **Names the unnamed** — Articulates something we've felt but couldn't express
- **Reveals hidden physics** — Exposes the actual forces driving a situation
- **Flips the script** — Challenges conventional wisdom without being contrarian for sport

### Forms It Might Take
- A coined term that actually helps us think (not jargon for jargon's sake)
- A paradox that reveals deeper truth
- A question that reframes the entire conversation
- Pattern recognition across unexpected domains
- A "yes, and..." that builds on existing ideas
- A synthesis that creates something genuinely new
- A distinction that clarifies muddy thinking
- A prediction grounded in observable shifts

### Quality Checks
- Could someone build on this idea?
- Does it help readers see their own experience differently?
- Is it memorable without being gimmicky?
- Does it feel discovered rather than constructed?
- Would it spark a good dinner conversation?

## How to Generate

1. **Analyze the content** — What's the core insight? What's the writer actually saying?

2. **Select 3 approaches** that fit. Consider:
   - What's the strongest version of this argument?
   - What framing would make this stickiest?
   - What would make a reader stop and think?

3. **Generate one thesis per approach** — Each should be 1-2 sentences that crystallize the insight.

4. **Present all three** with a brief note on the approach.

## Output Format

```
## Thesis Options

### Option 1: [Brief description of approach]
[1-2 sentence thesis]

### Option 2: [Brief description of approach]
[1-2 sentence thesis]

### Option 3: [Brief description of approach]
[1-2 sentence thesis]

---

Which feels closest? Or want me to try a different angle?
```

## Principles

- **Arguable** — Someone could disagree; it takes a position
- **Specific** — Not so broad it could apply to anything
- **Sharp** — Cuts through; not mushy or hedged
- **Generative** — Opens up thinking rather than closing it down

## Lessons

[Skill-specific lessons will be added here as they're captured]

View saved version →

---
name: cw-tracks
description: Finds where the writing shows its tracks—scaffolding, throat-clearing, process narration, and arrival sequences that should be erased now that the destination is clear.
---

# Tracks

## Purpose

Find where the writing shows its tracks. Annie Dillard: "Process is nothing; erase your tracks." This skill hunts for the scaffolding still visible in a draft—the exploratory thinking, the arrival sequences, the "how I got here" that helped the writer but slows the reader.

Use this when:
- A draft reads like a journey log instead of a destination
- You can see the writer thinking on the page
- Sections narrate the process of figuring something out rather than presenting what was found
- The piece feels like it's warming up for too long before it arrives
- You've revised heavily and want to check for leftover scaffolding

## Invocation

- `/cw-tracks [text]` — Find the tracks in the provided text
- `/cw-tracks` — System asks "What needs its tracks erased?"
- Works on selection if provided, asks if not

## Track Types

| Track | What It Looks Like | Why It Should Go |
|-------|-------------------|------------------|
| **The Arrival Sequence** | "After much research, I realized..." "It took me a while to see that..." | The reader doesn't need your travel itinerary. Start where you landed. |
| **The Scaffolding** | Transitional paragraphs that connect old thinking to new thinking. | These helped you build the argument. The argument can stand without them now. |
| **The Thinking-Out-Loud** | "What if we consider..." "One might wonder..." "This raises the question..." | You already answered the question. Just give the answer. |
| **The Hedge Trail** | "It seems like," "I think," "perhaps," "it's possible that" — accumulated over drafts. | Hedges multiply during revision. Most can go once you know what you believe. |
| **The Deleted Argument's Ghost** | A rebuttal to a point no longer in the piece. A transition to a section that was cut. | Old structure leaves phantom limbs. Find and amputate them. |
| **The Discovery Narration** | "I didn't expect to find..." "Surprisingly..." "What I learned was..." | The reader experiences discovery through the idea itself, not through being told you discovered it. |
| **The Warm-Up** | First 1-3 paragraphs that exist because the writer needed a running start. | Your real opening is buried somewhere in paragraph 3 or 4. |
| **The Belt-and-Suspenders** | Making the same point twice in different words, because you weren't sure the first version landed. | Trust your first swing. If it didn't land, fix it—don't repeat it. |

## The Dillard Test

For every passage, ask:
1. Is this here for the reader or for the writer?
2. Does this describe the process of thinking, or the thought itself?
3. If I cut this, would the argument still stand?
4. Is this the destination, or the road I took to get there?

If the passage is road, not destination—erase the track.

## Output Format

```
## Track Report

**Tracks found:** [count]
**Severity:** [Light — a few fingerprints / Moderate — scaffolding visible / Heavy — the draft reads like a process log]

---

### The Tracks

1. **[Track type]** — [Location/quote]
   Why it's showing: [Brief explanation]
   Erase it by: [Specific suggestion]

2. **[Track type]** — [Location/quote]
   Why it's showing: [Brief explanation]
   Erase it by: [Specific suggestion]

[Continue for each track found]

---

### The Warm-Up Check

**Does the real piece start where the draft starts?**
[Yes / No — the piece actually begins at: "[quote from where the real opening lives]"]

---

### The Clean Version

[Rewrite of the most track-heavy section with tracks erased]

---

**What changed:**
- [How erasing tracks improved the passage]

Is the path clear now, or are there tracks I missed?
```

## Principles

- **Process is nothing; erase your tracks** — The reader should experience the destination, not the journey you took to find it.
- **The writer's discovery is not the reader's discovery** — You found the insight by wandering. The reader should find it by being led.
- **Scaffolding is for building, not for living in** — Once the structure stands, take down the scaffolding.
- **Trust arrival** — If you've arrived at a strong point, you don't need to narrate the arrival.
- **Revision leaves residue** — Every round of revision can leave traces of earlier versions. The last pass should clean the glass.

## The Box Canyon

Dillard describes writing as following a path into a box canyon—you dispatch reports from new territory. The reports are the writing. The path you took to get there is not. If your draft reads like a trail map, you're publishing the wrong thing.

## Lessons

[Skill-specific lessons will be added here as they're captured]

View saved version →

---
name: cw-transition
description: Generate 3 context-aware transition options between sections. Invoke with /cw-transition or /cw-transition [from section X to section Y].
---

# Transition

## Purpose

Generate 3 transition options between sections, tailored to the piece type and content.

## Invocation

- `/cw-transition [context]` — Generate transitions for the specified sections
- `/cw-transition` — System asks "Which sections are you bridging?" then generates options

## Transition Patterns

| Pattern | What It Does | Use When |
|---------|--------------|----------|
| **Logical bridge** | Connects ideas through reasoning | Argumentative, logic-driven pieces |
| **Story flow** | Continues narrative momentum | Narrative or reflective pieces |
| **Sudden shift** | Deliberately jolts the reader | Tonal pivots, surprising turns |

## Anti-Patterns (Always Avoid)

Never use these transitions:
- "Furthermore"
- "Additionally"
- "Moreover"
- "Another point"
- "In addition"
- "It is also worth noting"
- "On another note"
- Any formal academic connector

## How to Generate

1. **Analyze the piece type** — Is it argumentative? Narrative? Reflective? Mixed?

2. **Understand the sections** — What's the ending idea of section A? What's the opening idea of section B?

3. **Select 3 approaches** weighted toward patterns that fit the piece type.

4. **Generate one transition per approach** — Each should be 1-2 sentences that bridge naturally.

5. **Present all three** with the pattern labeled.

## Output Format

```
## Transition Options

### Option 1: Logical Bridge
[1-2 sentence transition]

### Option 2: Story Flow
[1-2 sentence transition]

### Option 3: Sudden Shift
[1-2 sentence transition]

---

Which feels right for this moment? Or want me to try something else?
```

## Principles

- **Invisible is ideal** — The best transitions don't call attention to themselves
- **Each section should answer the previous question** — Create natural flow through implicit Q&A
- **Vary your moves** — Don't use the same transition pattern throughout
- **Earn the shift** — If you're making a sudden jump, the content should justify it

## Context-Aware Weighting

Adjust which patterns to emphasize based on piece type:

| Piece Type | Primary Pattern | Secondary | Use Sparingly |
|------------|-----------------|-----------|---------------|
| Argument/Analysis | Logical bridge | Story flow | Sudden shift |
| Personal essay | Story flow | Sudden shift | Logical bridge |
| How-to/Guide | Logical bridge | — | Sudden shift |
| Opinion/Take | Logical bridge | Sudden shift | Story flow |
| Profile/Narrative | Story flow | Sudden shift | Logical bridge |

## Lessons

[Skill-specific lessons will be added here as they're captured]

View saved version →

---
name: cw-voice-check
description: Diagnose whether writing matches the active writer, project, publication, and platform voice context, then offer a closer revision. Use when the user asks whether text sounds like them, feels generic, or has drifted from an established voice.
---

# Voice Check

Evaluate the passage against the voice context that actually governs the assignment.

## Load Voice Context

Read `../../references/context-contract.md`, then load the relevant maintained voice and style sources it identifies.

Use this authority order for voice work:

1. Explicit instructions for the current passage.
2. The active writer and project `VOICE.md` files.
3. Project, publication, column, or platform `STYLE.md` and more specific guides.
4. Relevant curated examples from the active project's `examples/` folder.
5. Legacy `TASTE.md`, only when the project still maintains it.
6. Plugin defaults only for unresolved gaps.

Name the sources used in the assessment. Do not treat plugin defaults as the writer's identity.

## Diagnose

Check for:

- sentence architecture and cadence;
- diction and register;
- specificity, scenes, examples, and stakes;
- humor, vulnerability, priors, and distinctive asides;
- publication or platform fit;
- smoothing, generic symmetry, scaffolding, and other AI residue;
- phrases copied too closely from illustrative voice-guide examples.

Preserve intentional rule-breaking when it carries the writer's point of view.
Treat examples as evidence for voice rules, not a corpus to imitate.

## Output

Provide:

1. **Voice sources used** — the live files or supplied instructions.
2. **Aligned** — the strongest specific matches.
3. **Drift** — the few highest-impact mismatches, quoted precisely.
4. **Closer revision** — a usable rewrite that preserves meaning and authorship.
5. **Judgment call** — any tension between writer voice and publication/platform constraints.

Do not turn the result into a generic style checklist. The test is whether this piece sounds like this writer in this context.

View saved version →

---
name: cw-vonnegut
description: Applies Vonnegut's 8 rules for writing. Start close to the end, give characters wants, be a sadist, etc.
---

# Vonnegut

## Purpose

Check your writing against Kurt Vonnegut's eight rules for fiction—which apply to nonfiction too. This skill audits your piece for the fundamentals that make stories work.

Use this when:
- A piece feels technically fine but somehow lifeless
- You want a structural gut-check
- You're not sure if your piece has forward momentum
- You need to diagnose why something isn't working

## Invocation

- `/cw-vonnegut [text]` — Audit the provided text against the 8 rules
- `/cw-vonnegut` — System asks "What piece should I audit?"
- Works on selection if provided, asks if not

## The 8 Rules

### 1. Use the time of a total stranger in such a way that he or she will not feel the time was wasted.

Every sentence must do one of two things: reveal character or advance the action. If it does neither, cut it.

**Check:** Is there anything here that a reader would skip? Anything that made you feel smart but doesn't serve them?

### 2. Give the reader at least one character he or she can root for.

Even in nonfiction, readers need someone to follow. That might be you, a subject, or a stand-in for the reader.

**Check:** Who does the reader care about in this piece? Why should they want that person to succeed?

### 3. Every character should want something, even if it is only a glass of water.

Want creates movement. A character (or writer, or reader) who wants nothing is dead on the page.

**Check:** What does the main figure in this piece want? Is that want visible from the start?

### 4. Every sentence must do one of two things—reveal character or advance the action.

This is rule one restated as a practical test. If a sentence fails both, it goes.

**Check:** Can you justify every sentence? What would be lost if it disappeared?

### 5. Start as close to the end as possible.

Don't give backstory. Don't set up. Start where things are already happening.

**Check:** Where does this piece actually begin? Could you cut the first paragraph and lose nothing?

### 6. Be a sadist. No matter how sweet and innocent your leading characters, make awful things happen to them—in order that the reader may see what they are made of.

Conflict reveals character. Comfort hides it. Your subjects (including yourself) should struggle.

**Check:** What's hard in this piece? Where's the difficulty, failure, or resistance?

### 7. Write to please just one person.

If you try to please everyone, you'll please no one. Write as if for a single specific reader.

**Check:** Who is this piece for? Can you name them? Would they recognize themselves?

### 8. Give your readers as much information as possible as soon as possible.

No mysteries for mystery's sake. No withholding to seem clever. Trust the reader with information.

**Check:** Are you hiding anything that the reader should know earlier? Are you being coy?

## Output Format

```
## Vonnegut Audit

### Rule-by-Rule Check

| Rule | Verdict | Notes |
|------|---------|-------|
| 1. Time well spent | ✓ / ✗ | [Brief note] |
| 2. Someone to root for | ✓ / ✗ | [Brief note] |
| 3. Character wants something | ✓ / ✗ | [Brief note] |
| 4. Every sentence earns its place | ✓ / ✗ | [Brief note] |
| 5. Starts close to the end | ✓ / ✗ | [Brief note] |
| 6. Sadist (conflict present) | ✓ / ✗ | [Brief note] |
| 7. Written for one person | ✓ / ✗ | [Brief note] |
| 8. Information given freely | ✓ / ✗ | [Brief note] |

---

### The Main Issue

**Biggest violation:** [Which rule is most broken and why]

**How to fix it:** [Specific suggestion]

---

### Other Notes

[Any other observations that don't fit the rules but matter]

---

Pass: [X/8 rules]
```

## Principles

- **These rules are for diagnosis, not dogma** — Vonnegut broke his own rules constantly. But knowing when you're breaking them is the point.
- **Nonfiction counts as story** — Even essays have characters (you, your subjects, the reader), wants, and movement.
- **Rule 5 is the most commonly broken** — Almost everyone starts too early. Almost every piece improves if you cut the first paragraph.
- **Rules 3 and 6 are linked** — Want + obstacle = story. Miss either and the piece goes flat.

## Lessons

[Skill-specific lessons will be added here as they're captured]