@human-avatar/skills-for-humanity 1.0.0

package/skills/writing-line-editing/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,87 @@
+---
+name: writing-line-editing
+description: "Applies five-category line-editing passes to identify and repair redundancy, nominalisations, passive voice, rhythmic monotony, and throat-clearing. Use when prose is clunky, wordy, or mechanically flawed. Triggers: 'the sentences are clunky', 'line editing', 'the prose is wordy', 'tighten this up', 'sentence-level editing', 'too many passive constructions', 'the writing is verbose'."
+---
+
+# Writing: Line Editing
+
+Line editing addresses mechanical failures at the sentence level — the problems that make competent writing feel clunky, slow, or airless. These are distinct from prose quality problems (which `/writing-prose-elevation` addresses): line editing is about removing what is broken, not elevating what is merely flat.
+
+Five failures account for the majority of sentence-level problems:
+
+**Redundancy:** Saying the same thing twice, either in the same sentence or in adjacent sentences. Often invisible to the writer because the repetition feels like emphasis or clarity.
+
+**Nominalisation (zombie nouns):** Converting verbs and adjectives into noun forms, burying the action inside the noun. "Made a decision" instead of "decided." "Had a realisation" instead of "realised." "Conducted an investigation" instead of "investigated." Every nominalisation costs one verb, reduces clarity, and adds bureaucratic weight.
+
+**Agency-obscuring passive voice:** Not all passive voice is wrong — "Mistakes were made" is passive, but sometimes the subject genuinely isn't known or relevant. The problem is passive voice that obscures *who did what*, when the agent matters: "The decision was made to cut the programme" when the sentence needs to say who cut it.
+
+**Rhythmic monotony:** All sentences the same length. All sentences starting the same way. A page that reads like a manual because every sentence is a main clause, subject-verb-object, approximately fifteen words, followed by another exactly like it. Rhythm variation creates pace, emphasis, and the sense of a living mind behind the prose.
+
+**Throat-clearing:** Opening sentences or paragraphs that warm up before landing. "It is worth noting that the situation has certain characteristics that make it worth considering." The sentence starts before the writer has found the point. The actual sentence starts at "the situation."
+
+---
+
+## Your Process
+
+**Pass 1: Redundancy**
+Flag any sentence or passage that says what has already been said. This includes: direct repetition (same information twice in close proximity), circular sentences (restating the subject in the predicate), and summary after explanation (explaining something then immediately summarising it). For each: quote both instances, recommend cutting or combining.
+
+**Pass 2: Zombie Nouns (Nominalisations)**
+Scan for the most common nominalisation patterns:
+- "Made a [noun]" → [verb]: made a decision → decided; made a recommendation → recommended
+- "Had a [noun]" → [verb]: had a realisation → realised; had a discussion → discussed
+- "Conducted a [noun]" → [verb]: conducted an investigation → investigated
+- Abstract nouns with -tion, -ment, -ance, -ence endings that are hiding a more precise verb
+
+For each: quote the nominalised form + suggest the active verb replacement.
+
+**Pass 3: Passive Voice**
+Flag passive constructions. For each:
+- Is the agent unknown or genuinely irrelevant? → Passive is acceptable.
+- Is the agent known and relevant? → Reconstruct as active with agent as subject.
+- Is the passive obscuring accountability or responsibility? → Flag specifically.
+
+**Pass 4: Sentence Rhythm**
+Read a sample passage aloud. Note:
+- Are all sentences approximately the same length?
+- Are all sentences the same syntactic pattern (subject-verb-object)?
+- Are there no short sentences? (A single short declarative sentence after a long passage creates emphasis. Without them, everything is the same weight.)
+- Is there no sentence variety — compound sentences, complex sentences, fragments for effect?
+
+Prescribe: where to add short sentences; where to vary opening patterns; where a sentence can be broken or combined.
+
+**Pass 5: Throat-Clearing**
+Identify opening sentences in paragraphs and in the piece itself where the writer is warming up rather than landing. Signs: "It is worth noting that...", "It is important to understand that...", "One of the interesting aspects of this is...", sentences where the subject is "it" or "there" followed by a linking verb.
+
+For each: quote the throat-clearing opener + write the sentence as it should start.
+
+---
+
+## Output Format
+
+### Line-Edit Report
+
+**Redundancies:** [Quoted instances + cut/combine recommendation]
+
+**Zombie Nouns:** [Quoted form → Active verb replacement]
+
+**Passive Voice:**
+- Acceptable: [Quoted + reason passive is fine]
+- Should be active: [Quoted → Active reconstruction]
+- Accountability-obscuring: [Quoted + FLAG]
+
+**Rhythm Notes:** [Diagnosis of monotony type + prescription: where to add short sentences, vary openings, etc.]
+
+**Throat-Clearing:** [Quoted opener → Lean reconstruction]
+
+**Rewritten Sample Paragraph:** [One complete paragraph from the submitted text with all five categories of changes applied, showing the cumulative effect]
+
+---
+
+## Notes
+
+- Run `/writing-restructure` before line editing. Rewriting sentences in a section that will be cut or moved is wasted effort. Structure first, sentences second.
+- Line editing removes problems; it does not create quality. After a clean line edit, flat prose is still flat — just more efficient. For prose quality, see `/writing-prose-elevation`.
+- The zombie noun pattern is the single highest-return edit pass: nominalisations are extremely common in professional and academic writing, and every conversion strengthens the sentence.
+- Pairs with `/writing-prose-elevation` — these two skills work in sequence: line editing removes the clutter, prose elevation raises the quality.
+- Pairs with `/writing-tone-alignment` — many tone corrections are sentence-level changes; the two passes can often be combined.

package/skills/writing-plot-structure/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+---
+name: writing-plot-structure
+description: "Diagnoses structural failures in a story using the five-beat dramatic framework — inciting incident, first turning point, midpoint, dark night, climax. Use when a plot isn't working, the middle drags, momentum is lost, or the story feels loose. Triggers: 'the story isn't working', 'plot structure', 'my middle drags', 'the plot feels loose', 'story structure', 'momentum problem', 'the structure is off'."
+---
+
+# Writing: Plot Structure
+
+Most plot problems are structural. When readers say "it loses momentum," "the middle drags," or "the ending felt rushed," they are usually reporting structural failures, not prose failures. The sentences may be excellent. The problem is in the architecture.
+
+The five-beat structure is not a formula — it is a description of how dramatic tension works. Each beat is defined by what it does to the story's central question, not by where it falls in the word count. A thriller and a literary novel obey the same structural logic: the reader holds a question, the beats escalate the stakes of that question, and the climax answers it. The internal and external arcs must mirror each other: the external plot generates the conditions that force the internal change.
+
+The most common structural failures: a missing first turning point (so the protagonist never truly commits, meaning there are no real stakes); a flat midpoint (so the story runs in a straight line rather than shifting direction); and a dark night that is too short (so the climax feels unearned).
+
+---
+
+## Your Process
+
+**Step 1: Inciting Incident**
+What disrupts the equilibrium? Identify the event that breaks the story's opening state and raises the central question. Diagnostic: does this event happen *to* the protagonist, or merely *near* them? An inciting incident that the protagonist can ignore is not functioning — it must demand response. Does it raise a specific, answerable question that will carry the story?
+
+**Step 2: First Turning Point**
+Where does the protagonist commit to the central struggle? This is the point of no return — after this, they cannot go back to the opening state even if they wanted to. It is often marked by an active choice, not just an event that happens to them. Diagnostic: is there a real cost to this commitment? If there's no cost, there are no stakes.
+
+**Step 3: Midpoint**
+False victory or false defeat — identify it. The midpoint should shift the story's direction: if the first half was a rising pursuit, the midpoint brings a reversal that changes what the story is really about. Diagnostic: does the story's central question *change shape* at the midpoint, or does the story simply continue? A midpoint that doesn't shift direction is doing nothing structural — it is merely an event.
+
+**Step 4: Dark Night / Lowest Point**
+The protagonist confronts the central struggle with everything they have and appears to lose. This is not a setback — it is the apparent defeat. Diagnostic: is the protagonist active here (trying and failing) or passive (simply having bad things happen to them)? Passive dark nights feel melodramatic rather than earned. Does this moment force the internal confrontation that the arc requires?
+
+**Step 5: Climax and Resolution**
+The internal change enabled by the dark night allows the external problem to resolve. The key diagnostic: does the climax require the protagonist's change, or could any competent person have resolved it? If the resolution doesn't require the protagonist's specific internal transformation, the plot and character arc are running on parallel tracks that never truly connect.
+
+**For each beat:** Does it exist? Is it caused by the beat before it (cause-and-effect chain)? Does it raise the stakes rather than maintain them?
+
+---
+
+## Output Format
+
+### Structural Map
+
+**Inciting Incident:** [Event + central question it raises / diagnosis of whether it is functioning]
+
+**First Turning Point:** [Commitment moment + stakes diagnosis / missing or weak?]
+
+**Midpoint:** [False victory or false defeat + direction shift / diagnosis]
+
+**Dark Night:** [Apparent defeat + active vs. passive diagnosis / earned or melodramatic?]
+
+**Climax and Resolution:** [How internal change enables external resolution / does the plot require this specific character?]
+
+**Cause-and-Effect Chain:** [Does each beat cause the next? Gaps or breaks identified]
+
+**Diagnosis:** [Primary structural problem(s) — which beats are missing, weak, or disconnected]
+
+**Recommended Fixes:** [Specific interventions for each problem beat]
+
+---
+
+## Notes
+
+- Structural problems cannot be fixed at the prose level. If a beat is missing or broken, adding better sentences will not repair it.
+- A common false fix: adding subplots to fill structural gaps. Subplots that don't connect to the central question create weight without tension.
+- Pairs with `/writing-arc-design` — the internal arc must mirror the external structure; structural diagnosis and arc design must happen together for the fix to hold.
+- Pairs with `/writing-restructure` when the beats exist but are in the wrong sequence or proportion — restructure addresses arrangement, not the beats themselves.
+- Pairs with `/writing-scene-construction` when the structural beats are present but individual scenes within them are not delivering what the structure requires.

package/skills/writing-pov/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+---
+name: writing-pov
+description: "Audits point-of-view for violations, consistency, and fit. Use when narration feels inconsistent, when there is unwanted head-hopping, or when the chosen POV isn't serving the story. Triggers: 'POV problems', 'head-hopping', 'point of view', 'the narration feels inconsistent', 'POV violations', 'narrative perspective', 'sometimes we know things the character shouldn't'."
+---
+
+# Writing: Point of View
+
+POV is a contract with the reader about what the narration can know. The moment that contract is violated — the moment the narration accesses something it has promised not to access — the reader's trust breaks. Usually they don't know why. They just feel the seam, the moment the author's hand becomes visible. "How did we know that?" is the diagnostic question.
+
+Each POV type makes a different promise:
+
+**First person:** The narrator tells us what they experienced, observed, thought, and felt. They cannot know what other characters are thinking unless they are told or infer it (and the inference should be flagged as inference). They can be unreliable — their account of events may be shaped by their psychology, their blindspots, their desire to present themselves well.
+
+**Close third person:** Narration follows one character's subjective experience. The narration can access their thoughts and feelings but cannot access anyone else's interior. Physical details that the POV character couldn't observe (what their own face looks like, what's happening in a room they're not in) require specific handling. Thought and feeling are rendered from inside, not described from outside.
+
+**Omniscient:** The narrator has access to any mind. But omniscient POV is not a licence for chaos — it must be used consistently. An omniscient narrator who dips into three minds in one scene and then goes external in the next has not chosen omniscient POV; they have abandoned POV control entirely.
+
+The fit question is as important as the violation question: does the chosen POV serve what the story is trying to do? A story whose power lives in dramatic irony (the reader knows something the protagonist doesn't) may work better in third than first. A story whose power is unreliable memory may need first person. The POV choice is not arbitrary — the story's core effect often depends on it.
+
+---
+
+## Your Process
+
+**Step 1: Identify Current POV Type**
+First person / close third / omniscient / second person / mixed. If mixed, is it intentionally mixed (multiple POV characters with clear transitions) or unintentionally mixed (the narration drifts without structure)?
+
+**Step 2: State the Contract**
+What does this POV promise about access to interiority? First person: access to the narrator's interior, inference about others. Close third: access to POV character's interior, not others'. Omniscient: access to any interior, but must be applied consistently. State the contract explicitly — it becomes the audit standard.
+
+**Step 3: Scan for Violations**
+Violations fall into four categories:
+- **Interiority violations:** Narration accesses another character's thoughts or feelings without the POV character being told or inferring
+- **Observation violations:** Narration describes something the POV character couldn't see, hear, or observe
+- **Knowledge violations:** Narration assumes knowledge the POV character doesn't have
+- **Inconsistency violations:** The POV type shifts without transition (close third suddenly going omniscient for one paragraph)
+
+For each violation: quote the line, identify the type, name what was accessed that couldn't be accessed.
+
+**Step 4: Fit Assessment**
+Does the chosen POV serve the story's core effect? Consider:
+- If the story's power is in *not knowing* something — close third may serve better than omniscient
+- If the story's power is in the narrator's *voice and personality* — first person may be more powerful
+- If the story requires events the protagonist can't witness — close third may be limiting; omniscient or multiple POV may be needed
+- If dramatic irony is central — omniscient or multiple POV enables it; first-person limits it
+
+---
+
+## Output Format
+
+### POV Audit
+
+**Type Identified:** [First person / Close third / Omniscient / Second / Mixed — and whether mixed is intentional]
+
+**Contract Stated:** [What this POV promises about access to interiority and observation]
+
+**Violations:**
+- [Quoted line] — Type: [Interiority / Observation / Knowledge / Inconsistency] — What was accessed that couldn't be
+- [Repeat for each violation]
+- NONE FOUND if clean
+
+**Fit Assessment:** [Does this POV serve the story's core effect? What would be gained or lost by changing it?]
+
+**Recommendation:** [Maintain current POV with fixes / Consider switching to X because Y]
+
+---
+
+## Notes
+
+- POV violations are a type of continuity error, but they require their own audit pass because they operate at the narrative level rather than the story level.
+- The hardest violations to catch in close third: the narrator describing what the POV character's own face looks like (characters don't see their own faces), and the narration accessing physical sensations the POV character has gone numb to (because the author needs the reader to feel them).
+- Pairs with `/writing-voice-consistency` — POV and voice are linked; a close-third narration that suddenly takes on the author's philosophical voice rather than the character's is both a POV violation and a voice inconsistency.
+- Pairs with `/writing-inconsistency-audit` — POV violations are logged there as a category; this skill provides the deeper analysis when they're numerous or the POV choice itself is the problem.

package/skills/writing-prose-elevation/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+---
+name: writing-prose-elevation
+description: "Raises the quality of competent but flat prose by targeting abstraction, weak verbs, and sensory absence. Use when writing is error-free but doesn't sing — when it reads as competent but not compelling. Triggers: 'the writing is flat', 'prose elevation', 'competent but not compelling', 'lift this writing', 'the prose needs work but isn't broken', 'make this sing', 'the prose is fine but forgettable'."
+---
+
+# Writing: Prose Elevation
+
+Prose elevation is not about imposing a style — it's about realising the latent quality already present. Flat prose usually fails in three specific ways, and fixing these three things is enough to significantly raise the quality without overwriting or artificially inflating the voice.
+
+**Abstraction without grounding:** The writer reaches for the general statement — "she felt profound grief" — when a specific image would land harder and trust the reader more. "She kept finding his reading glasses in places she hadn't thought to look." Abstraction summarises experience; specific images recreate it. The reader feels what the abstract statement tries to tell them.
+
+**Weak verbs:** Was, had, got, made, felt, seemed, looked, walked, went. These verbs are not wrong — they are just underloaded. "The room was cold" tells us almost nothing. "The cold crept in under the door and settled at floor level" gives us a room. Precise verbs do the work that adverbs are often asked to do — and do it better.
+
+**Sensory absence:** Prose that lives entirely in dialogue and action, with no texture of the physical world — no temperature, smell, sound, surface — feels disembodied. The reader floats above the scene rather than inhabiting it. Sensory detail is not decoration; it is the mechanism by which the reader is placed inside the experience.
+
+These three failures are addressable without changing a writer's voice. The elevation preserves what is already working and deepens it.
+
+---
+
+## Your Process
+
+**Step 1: Identify Existing Strengths**
+Before anything else: what is already working? Strong rhythm, distinctive voice, sharp observation, effective structural choice — whatever the piece is doing well. These are the anchors. The elevation must stay consistent with them; it cannot override them. A prose elevation that erases the writer's idiosyncrasies in favour of "better" prose has failed.
+
+**Step 2: Abstraction Audit**
+Flag abstract statements — places where the prose summarises or tells rather than shows or evokes. For each:
+- Quote the abstract statement
+- Identify what specific image, action, or detail could carry the same meaning
+- Write the grounded alternative
+
+The test: does the replacement trust the reader to make the connection, or does it explain it? If it explains it, it has not moved from abstract to concrete — it has just added a concrete example that summarises the abstract statement. The concrete image should stand alone.
+
+**Step 3: Verb Audit**
+Scan for weak verbs in every sentence. The most common offenders: forms of *to be* (was, were, is, are), *to have* (had, has), *to get*, *to make*, *to seem*, *to look*, *to go*, *to feel*. For each:
+- Quote the sentence with the weak verb
+- Identify what the sentence is actually trying to say about action, quality, or state
+- Write a more precise verb that carries that meaning directly
+
+Note: not every weak verb needs replacing. Sometimes "was" is correct. The audit is about identifying instances where a stronger verb would do more work.
+
+**Step 4: Sensory Audit**
+Identify scenes, descriptions, or passages with no sensory grounding — where the prose operates only at the level of action, dialogue, and emotion without any texture of the physical world. For each:
+- Identify which senses are absent (almost always smell and touch; sometimes sound)
+- Suggest specific sensory details that are both accurate to the scene and meaningful — connected to what the scene is doing thematically or emotionally
+- The detail should not be arbitrary. The smell of antiseptic in a hospital scene about loss serves the scene; the smell of coffee in the same scene may not.
+
+**Step 5: One-Sentence Diagnosis**
+What is the prose's single main weakness across all three categories? Name it precisely. This shapes the recommendation: if the biggest issue is abstraction, the rewrite priority is grounding. If it's weak verbs, the priority is verb replacement. If it's sensory absence, the priority is texture.
+
+---
+
+## Output Format
+
+### Prose Elevation Report
+
+**Existing Strengths:** [What is working — preserve this]
+
+**Abstraction Instances:**
+- [Quoted abstract statement → Grounded replacement]
+- [Repeat]
+
+**Verb Replacements:**
+- [Quoted sentence with weak verb → Rewritten with precise verb]
+- [Repeat]
+
+**Sensory Additions:**
+- [Location / description of absent sense / Specific suggested detail + why it serves the scene]
+- [Repeat]
+
+**Single Main Weakness:** [The prose's primary elevation opportunity in one sentence]
+
+**Rewritten Sample Passage:** [A passage from the submitted text, rewritten applying all three categories of changes — at least one paragraph, showing the cumulative elevation effect]
+
+---
+
+## Notes
+
+- Prose elevation is not the same as rewriting. The goal is to realise the prose's potential, not replace it. A rewritten passage that no longer sounds like the writer has failed.
+- Elevation should happen after line editing: a clean, tight passage elevated to a higher quality is the goal. An elevated but verbose passage is worse than where it started.
+- The hardest part of abstraction replacement: finding the specific image that captures the abstract truth exactly — neither overstating nor understating it. "She felt alone" is abstract; "no one texted back" is specific; "she checked her phone and put it face-down on the table" is specific and also says something about the character.
+- Pairs with `/writing-line-editing` — these two tools work in sequence. Line editing first (remove problems), then prose elevation (raise quality).
+- Pairs with `/writing-voice-consistency` — elevation must stay in the voice. If the elevated passages sound like a different writer, the elevation has overshot.

package/skills/writing-report/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+---
+name: writing-report
+description: "Writes and audits business reports, briefing documents, and information reports for answer-first structure, precision, hierarchy, and navigability. Use when a report buries its findings, is written for the writer rather than the reader, or lacks clear structure. Triggers: 'write a report', 'report writing', 'business report', 'briefing document', 'information report', 'research summary', 'the report isn't clear', 'buries the findings'."
+---
+
+# Writing: Report
+
+Reports fail when they are written for the writer rather than the reader. The writer knows the context, did the work, and wants to show the rigour of the process. The reader needs to know the answer, understand its implications, and decide what to do — usually in less time than the writer spent writing. These are incompatible objectives, and when the report serves the writer's needs, it fails the reader.
+
+The most common report failures:
+
+**Context before answer:** The report explains how the analysis was done before stating what it found. The reader who needs to act has to mine through methodology to find the claim.
+
+**Findings without implications:** The report states what happened but not what it means. "Revenue declined 12% in Q3" is a finding. "Revenue declined 12% in Q3, driven primarily by a 31% drop in enterprise segment that is likely to continue unless the pricing model is revised" is an implication. Readers who need to decide need implications, not just findings.
+
+**Vague quantification:** "Significant growth," "substantial decline," "many customers." These phrases communicate nothing. If a number exists, use it. If it doesn't, acknowledge the absence explicitly.
+
+**Non-navigability:** A report that can only be understood by reading it from beginning to end has failed. The reader who needs the answer to one specific question should be able to find it. Section headers, a clear hierarchy, and an executive summary are not optional niceties — they are the delivery mechanism.
+
+---
+
+## Your Process
+
+**Step 1: Reader's Question**
+Who is reading this report, and what do they need to know and decide? State it specifically: not "the board needs to understand performance" but "the board needs to decide whether to approve the Q4 investment increase given Q3 performance." The reader's specific decision shapes every structural choice.
+
+**Step 2: Answer-First Check**
+Does the opening section answer the main question before developing it? The first section of a well-structured report should contain the key finding and its primary implication, in plain language, before any methodology, context, or detail. Check: can a reader who only reads the first section make an informed decision?
+
+**Step 3: Hierarchy**
+Are sections ordered by importance? Does each section have a clear, functional header that tells the reader what the section will say (not just what topic it covers)? "Q3 Performance" is a topic header. "Q3 Revenue Down 12% — Enterprise Segment Driving Decline" is an answer header. Answer headers allow navigation; topic headers don't.
+
+**Step 4: Precision**
+Flag every instance of vague quantification or hedging language: significant, substantial, many, some, often, rarely, most. For each: is there a specific number available? If yes, use it. If no, state the absence: "data not available" or "estimate pending" rather than a vague word that implies precision.
+
+**Step 5: Navigability**
+Can a time-pressed reader find what they need without reading everything? Check: is there an executive summary? Are section headers navigable? If there is a key recommendation, is it labelled clearly? Is there a table of contents for documents over 10 pages?
+
+---
+
+## Output Format
+
+### Report Audit
+
+**Reader's Question:** [Specific decision the reader needs to make]
+
+**Answer-First Assessment:** [Does the opening answer the question? / What is the first section actually doing?]
+
+**Hierarchy Map:** [Current section order + assessment of whether importance matches position / Answer headers vs. topic headers]
+
+**Precision Flags:** [Quoted vague language + specific alternative if number is available / "Data absent" note if not]
+
+**Navigability Assessment:** [Executive summary present? / Headers navigable? / Time-pressed reader path]
+
+**Recommended Structural Changes:** [Specific reorderings, reframings, and section header rewrites]
+
+---
+
+## Notes
+
+- Answer-first is not optional for executive audiences. The more senior the reader, the less time they will spend looking for the point. The point must be first.
+- The most common resistance to answer-first structure: "but the reader needs the context to understand the finding." Test this assumption. Usually the reader needs a fraction of the context they're given, and they need it after the finding, not before.
+- Pairs with `/writing-executive-summary` — for reports requiring a one-page brief above the full document.
+- Pairs with `/writing-audience-calibration` — the reader profile shapes every structural decision; the report format for a technical team and for a board are different documents.
+- Pairs with `/writing-restructure` when the report's problems are primarily structural — the findings are buried not in the prose but in the architecture.

package/skills/writing-restructure/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
+---
+name: writing-restructure
+description: "Diagnoses and repairs structural problems in non-fiction, essays, and documents — wrong order, buried lead, wrong ending, proportion errors. Use when a piece is in the wrong order, starts too late, or spends space on the wrong things. Triggers: 'the piece is in the wrong order', 'restructure', 'buries the lede', 'the structure is off', 'reorganise this', 'the ending is in the wrong place', 'takes too long to get to the point'."
+---
+
+# Writing: Restructure
+
+Structural problems are the hardest to see from inside the piece — because from inside, structure is invisible. The writer always knows where they're going; they know the context, the backstory, why the claim matters. The reader only knows where they've been. The result: pieces that are perfectly clear to the writer and impenetrable to the reader, because the reader doesn't have the context that makes the opening make sense, doesn't know that the important claim is on page four, and has no way to distinguish the load-bearing material from the scaffolding.
+
+Three structural failures account for the majority of structurally broken pieces:
+
+**Burying the lead:** The piece starts with context, background, or setup rather than the claim or finding. The writer needed to write the setup to arrive at the claim. The reader doesn't need it — or needs a fraction of it, after the claim has been stated.
+
+**Wrong ending:** The piece stops before it resolves. The real insight is in the second-to-last paragraph. The final paragraph is a softening or a retreat. Or the piece stops at the conclusion of the argument but before its implications — leaving the reader with the logic but not the meaning.
+
+**Wrong proportion:** The piece spends three pages on the least important point and half a page on the most important one. The proportion reflects the order in which the writer discovered things, not the order of their importance.
+
+All three failures have the same cause: the structure was not designed for the reader — it was inherited from the process of writing.
+
+---
+
+## Your Process
+
+**Step 1: Central Argument or Effect**
+What is the piece trying to do? State it in one sentence. If this can't be done in one sentence, the piece may not have a clear central claim — which is itself a structural problem. A piece that doesn't know what it's arguing cannot be structured around its argument.
+
+**Step 2: Map the Actual Structure**
+What comes first, second, third? Summarise each major section in one sentence. Note: not what the writer intended each section to do — what it actually does, from a reader's perspective. Often these are different.
+
+**Step 3: Find the Real Beginning**
+What is the first sentence or section that actually matters — where the piece's energy starts, where the reader genuinely needs to be to follow what follows? Everything before this point is either context that could be cut, setup that could be condensed to a sentence, or warming-up that the writer needed but the reader doesn't.
+
+**Step 4: Find the Right Ending**
+Where does the piece's energy actually resolve? This is often not the last paragraph. Look for the sentence or paragraph where the piece's central claim gets its fullest, most resonant expression. Everything after that point may be retreating from the claim, adding caveats, or continuing past the natural stopping point.
+
+**Step 5: Proportion Audit**
+List each major section with an approximate word count or proportional weight. Ask: is the heaviest section the most important one? Is the lightest section actually the load-bearing claim? Proportion that doesn't match importance sends the reader false signals about what matters.
+
+**Step 6: Reorder Recommendation**
+Given the above, what is the optimal sequence? State the new structure as a sequence of sections with rationale for the order.
+
+---
+
+## Output Format
+
+### Structural Diagnosis
+
+**Central Argument:** [One sentence — what the piece is trying to do]
+
+**Actual Structure Map:**
+1. [Section: what it does + approximate weight]
+2. [Section: what it does + approximate weight]
+3. [And so on]
+
+**Real Beginning:** [The sentence/section where the piece actually starts / Note on what precedes it and whether it should be cut or condensed]
+
+**Right Ending:** [Where the piece's energy resolves / Note on what follows it and whether it can be cut]
+
+**Proportion Audit:** [Most important sections vs. most space given / Mismatch between importance and weight]
+
+**Reorder Recommendation:** [New sequence with rationale for each position change]
+
+---
+
+## Notes
+
+- The most useful diagnostic question: if you deleted the first third of the piece and sent the reader straight to what is currently the middle, would they be lost? If no, the first third is probably setup that the writer needed but the reader doesn't.
+- Restructuring should happen before line editing. Rewriting sentences in a section that will be cut or moved is wasted effort.
+- Pairs with `/writing-executive-summary` when the restructured piece needs a front-loaded brief for an audience that won't read the full document.
+- Pairs with `/writing-argument` when the structural problem is an argument-structure problem — the claim, warrant, and evidence are in the wrong order or the warrant is missing.
+- Pairs with `/writing-line-editing` after restructuring is complete — once the order is right, the sentences can be cleaned.

package/skills/writing-rhetoric/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
+---
+name: writing-rhetoric
+description: "Analyses what a piece of writing is doing rhetorically — its rhetorical situation, explicit argument vs. buried frame, appeals map, and loaded language. Use to surface assumptions, examine persuasion techniques, or understand how a piece is working. Triggers: 'rhetorical analysis', 'what is this piece doing rhetorically', 'rhetoric', 'analyze this argument', 'how is this persuasive', 'what assumptions is this making', 'loaded language', 'hidden assumptions', 'what is this piece really arguing'."
+---
+
+# Writing: Rhetoric
+
+Rhetoric analysis asks not "what does this say" but "what is this doing." Every piece of writing has a rhetorical situation — a speaker, an audience, a purpose, a context — and makes rhetorical moves that are often invisible to both writer and reader. The analysis surfaces what is operating below the explicit argument.
+
+The most important distinction: **the explicit argument vs. the rhetorical frame**. The explicit argument is what the text claims. The rhetorical frame is what the text assumes without stating — the premises, values, and world-views that must be accepted for the argument to work, and which are never examined because they are presented as neutral common ground. The frame often does more work than the argument, and it is almost never examined.
+
+Example: a piece arguing for stricter immigration policy may frame "the nation" as a coherent entity with interests that can be defended, may frame immigration as a *flow* rather than people making decisions, and may frame the relevant question as "how many" rather than "who benefits and who bears costs." None of these framing choices are acknowledged as choices — they are presented as the natural way to think about the issue. But they are doing enormous rhetorical work.
+
+The classical appeals — logos (reason), ethos (authority/credibility), pathos (emotion) — describe the rhetorical resources available to any writer. Understanding which appeals dominate a piece, and whether they are being used proportionately and honestly, is central to rhetorical analysis.
+
+---
+
+## Your Process
+
+**Step 1: Rhetorical Situation**
+Identify the four elements of the rhetorical situation:
+- **Speaker/Author:** Who is presenting? What is their apparent identity, authority, and relationship to the subject?
+- **Audience:** Who is the intended reader? What assumptions does the text make about what the reader already believes?
+- **Purpose:** What is the text trying to do? (Persuade? Inform? Legitimise? Mobilise? Reassure?)
+- **Context:** What is the occasion and institutional setting of this text? What situation does it respond to?
+
+**Step 2: Explicit Argument vs. Rhetorical Frame**
+State the explicit argument: what does the text claim?
+Then map the rhetorical frame: what does the text assume without claiming?
+- What categories does the text use, and are those categories neutral or loaded?
+- What is presented as natural or obvious that is actually a contested choice?
+- What is not said — what counterframes, alternative categories, or competing values are absent?
+
+**Step 3: Appeals Map**
+Identify the proportion and quality of each appeal:
+- **Logos:** Reasoning, evidence, data, logical structure. Is the logical structure valid? Is the evidence sufficient and credible?
+- **Ethos:** Authority, credibility, shared values. Is authority earned or asserted? Is the ethos appeal based on genuine expertise or on status?
+- **Pathos:** Emotional resonance, story, imagery, language that activates feeling. Is the emotional appeal calibrated to the argument, or disproportionate? Is it being used honestly or to bypass reasoning?
+
+**Step 4: Loaded Language**
+Flag specific words or phrases that carry ideological weight without acknowledgment. These are words that encode a position within their seemingly neutral meaning:
+- "Common sense" (implies disagreement is unreasonable)
+- "Our values" (constructs a unified "we" that may not exist)
+- "Simply" / "obviously" (dismisses complexity)
+- Terms that are contested being used as if settled
+- Metaphors that encode a frame (immigration as "flood"; policy as "battle")
+
+For each: quote the term, identify what frame it encodes, and note what alternative language would make the choice visible.
+
+**Step 5: Verdict**
+Is the rhetoric honest and proportionate to the argument? This is the key evaluative question. Rhetoric is not inherently manipulative — all writing makes rhetorical choices. The question is whether the rhetorical moves are serving the argument or substituting for it; whether the loaded language is doing work the logic doesn't; whether the frame is being deployed honestly or invisibly.
+
+---
+
+## Output Format
+
+### Rhetorical Analysis
+
+**Rhetorical Situation:**
+- Speaker: [Identity, authority, relationship to subject]
+- Audience: [Intended reader + assumed prior beliefs]
+- Purpose: [What the text is trying to do]
+- Context: [Occasion and institutional setting]
+
+**Explicit Argument vs. Rhetorical Frame:**
+- Explicit argument: [What the text claims]
+- Buried frame: [What the text assumes — specific categories, naturalisations, absences]
+
+**Appeals Map:**
+- Logos: [Quality and proportion of reasoning and evidence]
+- Ethos: [Authority appeal — earned or asserted]
+- Pathos: [Emotional appeals — calibrated or disproportionate]
+- Dominant appeal: [Which dominates — appropriate or not?]
+
+**Loaded Language:**
+- [Quoted term] — Frame encoded: [what position it carries] — Alternative: [language that makes the choice visible]
+- [Repeat]
+- NONE FOUND if language is neutral
+
+**Verdict:** [Is the rhetoric honest and proportionate? Where does it serve the argument? Where does it substitute for it?]
+
+---
+
+## Notes
+
+- Rhetoric analysis is not the same as saying a piece is wrong. A rhetorically sophisticated piece may also be logically sound. Rhetoric analysis describes what it is doing — the evaluation of whether that is appropriate or misleading is a separate judgment.
+- The most common rhetoric problem in ostensibly neutral writing: the frame is doing the persuasion while the explicit content maintains the appearance of objectivity. News articles, policy briefs, and corporate communications are particularly susceptible to this.
+- Pairs with `/writing-argument` — argument analysis evaluates whether the logic is sound; rhetoric analysis evaluates how it is being made. They are complementary, not redundant.
+- Pairs with `logic-argument-validation` (in the logic category) — for formal logical structure analysis when the rhetoric analysis reveals argument problems that need rigorous logical audit.
+- Pairs with `/writing-audience-calibration` when the rhetorical analysis reveals that the text is calibrated not for its stated audience but for a different one — a common finding in political and institutional writing.

package/skills/writing-scene-construction/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+---
+name: writing-scene-construction
+description: "Diagnoses and repairs individual scenes using the want/obstacle/outcome framework. Every scene must change the story's state. Use when a scene feels flat, static, or purposeless. Triggers: 'this scene isn't working', 'scene construction', 'scene feels flat', 'scene review', 'fix this scene', 'the scene doesn't do anything', 'should I cut this scene'."
+---
+
+# Writing: Scene Construction
+
+Every scene is a mini-story. It needs a want, an obstacle, and an outcome. Without these three elements, it is not a scene — it is a passage of time. The reader experiences the difference viscerally, even if they can't name it: a scene without these elements reads as static, as nothing happening, as the story marking time.
+
+The outcome is the most frequently broken element. Every scene must end in a different state than it began. The outcome must be one of four types: **yes-but** (protagonist gets what they want but at a cost or complication), **no-and** (denied, and things are worse), **no-but** (denied, but something else is gained), or **yes-and** (achieved, and something else follows). Any scene that ends with an unmodified yes or no is a scene that hasn't done its work.
+
+The second most common failure: scenes that serve one function when they need to serve two. A scene that only reveals character, only provides information, or only advances plot is vulnerable to cutting. The best scenes do two or three things at once — and the obligation to do multiple things simultaneously is what generates the density that makes scenes feel necessary.
+
+---
+
+## Your Process
+
+**Step 1: Scene Goal**
+What does the POV character want in *this scene*? Not what they want in the story — what they want right now, from this specific situation. Be concrete: "to convince Marcus to lend her the money," not "to solve her financial problems." If the goal can't be stated specifically, the scene has no engine.
+
+**Step 2: Obstacle**
+What prevents the character from getting it? The obstacle should be active and specific — a person with their own opposing goal, a circumstance that makes the goal impossible, or an internal conflict that prevents the character from acting. Weak obstacles are vague ("things are difficult") or absent (the character just gets what they want).
+
+**Step 3: Outcome Type**
+Identify the outcome type:
+- **Yes-and:** Gets it, and something further results (often raises stakes)
+- **Yes-but:** Gets it, but at a cost or with a complication attached
+- **No-but:** Denied, but gains something useful or shifts direction
+- **No-and:** Denied, and the situation worsens
+
+Flag any scene ending in an unmodified yes ("they agreed and left") or unmodified no ("he refused and she walked out"). These scenes have not changed the story's state in a way that matters.
+
+**Step 4: Sensory Grounding**
+Which senses are present in the scene? Which is doing the most work? What's missing? Scenes that live only in dialogue and action are often missing the physical world — temperature, smell, sound, texture — that makes the reader inhabit the space rather than read about it. Note: sensory detail should not be decoration; it should carry meaning (the smell of the room is connected to what the room means).
+
+**Step 5: Subtext**
+What is NOT being said, but is present in the scene? Great scenes carry at least two conversations — the surface exchange and the subterranean one. If the characters are saying exactly what they mean, the scene has no subtext and reads as flat. Identify what each character is not saying and why.
+
+**Step 6: Scene Function**
+What does this scene do? Mark all that apply:
+- **Revelation** — something new is learned by a character or revealed to the reader
+- **Escalation** — stakes rise or the situation worsens
+- **Character** — character is revealed through choice or behaviour under pressure
+- **Transition** — moves characters or situation from one state to another
+
+If the scene serves only one function, it is at risk. Consider whether it can be combined with adjacent scenes or rewritten to serve a second function.
+
+---
+
+## Output Format
+
+### Scene Diagnosis
+
+**Goal:** [POV character's specific want in this scene]
+
+**Obstacle:** [What prevents it — active and specific]
+
+**Outcome Type:** [yes-and / yes-but / no-but / no-and / FLAGGED: unmodified]
+
+**Sensory Inventory:** [Senses present / which dominates / what's missing / whether detail carries meaning]
+
+**Subtext Present:** [What is not said + why / FLAGGED: no subtext]
+
+**Scene Function:** [Revelation / Escalation / Character / Transition — mark all present, flag if only one]
+
+**Verdict:** Keep / Cut / Combine / Rewrite
+
+**Specific Recommendation:** [Concrete intervention — what to add, remove, shift, or rewrite]
+
+---
+
+## Notes
+
+- The most useful diagnostic question: if you removed this scene, would the story notice? If the answer is no, the scene is failing.
+- Subtext problems are often dialogue problems — see `/writing-dialogue` for subtext-specific repair.
+- If the scene has a goal and obstacle but no sensory presence, see `/writing-prose-elevation` — the scene's architecture is right but the prose isn't delivering it.
+- Pairs with `/writing-dialogue` for scene-specific dialogue repair.
+- Pairs with `/writing-inconsistency-audit` for scene-level continuity errors (character knows something they shouldn't, objects change location, etc.).
+- Pairs with `/writing-plot-structure` when diagnosing whether a scene is failing because the structural beat it belongs to is itself failing.