Update to Compound Writing

{
  "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.",
  "included_files": [],
  "name": "cw-objections",
  "skill_md_contents": "---\nname: cw-objections\ndescription: Surfaces counterarguments, objections, and \"yeah buts\" a reader might have to your argument. Helps you anticipate and address resistance before it derails the piece.\n---\n\n# Objections\n\n## Purpose\n\nSurface 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.\n\nUse this when:\n- You're making an argument and want to anticipate resistance\n- You're not sure what's controversial about your claim\n- You want to find the weak points in your reasoning\n- You need to decide which objections to address in the piece\n\n## The Outsider Stance\n\nRead 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.\n\nThis 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.\n\nIf the piece works for someone who already trusts you but collapses for someone who doesn't, that's worth surfacing.\n\n## Invocation\n\n- `/cw-objections [text]` — Surface objections to the argument in the provided text\n- `/cw-objections` — System asks \"What argument should I find objections to?\"\n- Works on selection if provided, asks if not\n\n## Types of Objections\n\n| Type | What the Reader Thinks | Example |\n|------|------------------------|---------|\n| **Factual** | \"That's not actually true\" | \"Actually, the research shows the opposite\" |\n| **Experiential** | \"That doesn't match my experience\" | \"I've tried this and it didn't work for me\" |\n| **Scope** | \"This doesn't apply to my situation\" | \"This might work for startups but not enterprises\" |\n| **Mechanism** | \"I don't see how that follows\" | \"Why would doing X lead to Y?\" |\n| **Tradeoff** | \"What about the downsides?\" | \"Sure, but what do you lose by doing this?\" |\n| **Alternative** | \"There's a better way\" | \"Wouldn't it be easier to just...\" |\n| **Moral** | \"That feels wrong\" | \"This seems manipulative / unfair / short-sighted\" |\n| **Practical** | \"That's unrealistic\" | \"Who has time for that?\" |\n\n## How This Skill Works\n\n1. **Identify the core claims** — What are you actually arguing?\n2. **Find the assumptions** — What must be true for your argument to hold?\n3. **Surface objections** — Where would a thoughtful reader push back?\n4. **Rate severity** — Which objections are fatal if unaddressed?\n5. **Suggest responses** — How might you handle the strongest objections?\n\n## Output Format\n\n```\n## Objection Analysis\n\n**Your core argument:** [One-sentence summary of what you're claiming]\n\n**Key assumptions:**\n- [Assumption 1]\n- [Assumption 2]\n- [etc.]\n\n---\n\n### Objections (ranked by severity)\n\n**1. [Objection title]** — Severity: High/Medium/Low\n\n> The reader thinks: \"[What the skeptical reader is thinking]\"\n\nWhy this matters: [Why this objection could derail your argument]\n\nPossible response: [How you might address this—or note if you can't]\n\n---\n\n**2. [Objection title]** — Severity: High/Medium/Low\n\n[Same format]\n\n[Continue for all significant objections]\n\n---\n\n### Recommendation\n\n**Must address:** [Which objections you need to handle in the piece]\n\n**Can acknowledge:** [Which objections you can nod to briefly]\n\n**Can ignore:** [Which objections aren't worth your time]\n```\n\n## Principles\n\n- **Steel-man the objections** — Present the strongest version of each counterargument, not a strawman\n- **Be specific about who objects** — \"Some readers\" is vague. \"Readers who have tried and failed at X\" is useful.\n- **Distinguish fatal from minor** — Not all objections need addressing. Know which ones will lose the reader.\n- **Objections aren't attacks** — This skill thinks like a skeptic who wants to be convinced, not a hater\n- **Some objections reveal scope** — An objection might mean you need to narrow your claim, not defend it\n\n## The Difference from /cw-nemesis\n\n- `/cw-nemesis` attacks the writing itself—the craft, clarity, voice, and execution\n- `/cw-objections` attacks the argument—the claims, logic, evidence, and reasoning\n\nBoth find weaknesses. They just look in different places.\n\n## Lessons\n\n[Skill-specific lessons will be added here as they're captured]\n"
}