@su-record/vibe 4.1.7 → 4.1.9

package/skills/antislop-en/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,323 @@
+---
+name: antislop-en
+description: A writing skill that strips AI clichés and translationese and writes, diagnoses, revises and converts English prose to fit its purpose, reader and genre. Use it for statements and addresses, print columns, news articles, reports, broadcast and video scripts, technical documents, blog posts and other English output meant for a person to read or hear.
+metadata:
+  tags: [writing, english, editing, composition]
+  category: content
+---
+
+# English Writing Skill (antislop-en)
+
+`antislop-en` is a **general-purpose English writing skill**. It does not
+imitate one person or one register. It chooses English that fits the
+purpose, reader, medium and genre at hand.
+
+## When to Use
+
+- Writing a new piece from scratch.
+- Diagnosing a draft without changing it.
+- Revising only what needs to change while preserving facts and intent.
+- Converting a piece into a different length, medium or genre.
+- Rendering a foreign-language original into English free of translationese.
+
+Apply it by default to any request that creates or fixes English prose. Do
+not apply it to code, structured data, search queries or classification
+output — anything that is not meant to be read as prose.
+
+Treat "write" as authoring, "look this over" or "assess" as diagnosis, "fix"
+or "polish" as revision, and "convert" or "rewrite as" as conversion. Do not
+attach a diagnostic table or a description of your process that the user did
+not ask for; lead with the finished piece.
+
+## Prerequisites
+
+No separate program or credential is required. For requests that need a
+current usage or style-guide ruling, be able to consult a named dictionary
+and the relevant style guide (for example Merriam-Webster and AP, or the
+Oxford English Dictionary and Chicago).
+
+## How to Run
+
+Apply this automatically to requests that write, diagnose, revise or convert
+English prose. If it must be called explicitly, invoke `/antislop-en` and
+supply purpose, reader, genre, evidence and required format together.
+
+For work with high rejection cost — a manuscript bound for a reporter,
+columnist or chief editor — draft first, then read
+[Independent Editorial Review](references/editorial-review.md) in this
+skill's `references/editorial-review.md`, and bind a `review` check to the
+manuscript in a scenario so the harness (`vibe check`) runs `en-copy-editor`
+and then `en-chief-editor`. Do not treat the piece as final until both
+reviewers PASS.
+
+## Quick Reference
+
+When producing or fixing English that a person will read, hold to the
+following.
+
+- Preserve facts, figures, quotations, uncertainty and the source's meaning and form first. Do not add facts, scenes, feelings or quotations that are not there.
+- Before writing, fix the purpose, reader, medium, voice and boundary of evidence, then pull from the material only the facts, scenes, judgments and terms that belong to this piece. Build the frame from those alone.
+- Open with a specific subject, event or issue. Do not fill space with era-defining statements, claims about the topic's importance, or previews of what you are about to say.
+- Give each paragraph one central judgment and connect it by a real relationship — fact to interpretation, claim to evidence, problem to decision. Do not fake a relationship with a connective.
+- Every sentence must add a new fact, judgment, piece of evidence, condition, action, scene, or a connection the reader needs. Delete a sentence that would fit any topic, restates what came before, or is empty enthusiasm.
+- Make the actor, the party responsible, the timeframe, the condition, the basis of comparison and the referent of every pronoun explicit. Write sentences where subject and verb agree and modifiers sit where they belong.
+- Prefer concrete verbs. Unwind unnecessary nominalisation, passive voice and translationese, but keep legal and academic terms of art, proper nouns, code and settled technical vocabulary.
+- Do not write `not X but Y` where there is no real contrast, unsupported superlatives and value judgments, mechanical tricolons, sentences of uniform length and ending, or slogan-style closings.
+- Hold to the genre's unit of information and pacing. A statement or address is about responsibility and commitment; a print column is about a stance and its argument; a broadcast script is about words understood on first hearing.
+- For a piece bound for submission, lock the outlet, reader, length, thesis, evidence, the author's standing and the house style first. Do not invent an editorial policy nobody has stated.
+- Do not leave a sentence the editor must take on faith, a jump from evidence to conclusion, a pronoun with no antecedent in context, or a paragraph that duplicates the one before it.
+- For a report going to an expert, make conclusion, standard of judgment, evidence, limits and next action traceable to one another. Do not perform confidence or authority the material does not support.
+- After a draft, run three quiet passes: (1) facts, conditions and form preserved; (2) each sentence's contribution of information; (3) clichés, translationese and repeated rhythm. Deliver the finished piece without narrating the passes.
+- When context, thesis, evidence or submission specification is too unclear to safely close the gap, stop at `needs-human` instead of pretending the draft is finished.
+
+## Procedure
+
+### Editorial contract
+
+Before writing a piece for outside submission, fix the following as internal
+working ground.
+
+1. **Placement**: outlet, page/screen/audio, the section's character and length.
+2. **Reader and payoff**: what the reader already knows, what they need to learn, what they will judge after reading.
+3. **Thesis**: the core judgment stated in one sentence, and the counter-evidence that could overturn it.
+4. **Evidence**: the line between sourced fact, figure and quotation, and the author's own interpretation or experience.
+5. **Voice**: the author's standing, their distance from the subject, register, and the range they may assert.
+6. **Editorial format**: how headline, subhead, subheadings, quotations, numerals, proper nouns and sourcing are marked.
+
+When a style sheet or recently published pieces from the outlet are given,
+they take priority over general principles here. If they conflict, or a key
+item is missing and the outcome would change substantially, ask once. Do not
+label a draft submission-ready while that answer is still outstanding.
+
+Do not close out a piece for outside submission with only the writer's own
+review. Read
+[Independent Editorial Review](references/editorial-review.md) in this
+skill's `references/editorial-review.md` and use a `review` check so the
+harness runs `en-copy-editor` and `en-chief-editor` as separate reviewers. If
+neither the harness nor an agent is available, do not claim independent
+review took place — say instead that human editorial review is needed before
+final submission.
+
+### 1. Lock first
+
+Confirm the following before writing. Set reasonable defaults for anything
+not given, and ask only about the ambiguity that would materially change the
+result.
+
+1. Purpose of the piece: notice, explanation, persuasion, record, narrative or dialogue.
+2. Reader: what they already know, and what they need to decide or feel.
+3. Genre and medium: article, report, speech, fiction, script, technical document, post, and so on.
+4. Boundary of evidence: how confirmed fact, quotation, estimate and example are distinguished.
+5. Format: length, register, headings, lists, tables, markdown, any call to action.
+
+If a brand voice or a particular person's voice is specified, follow it. If
+not, the piece's purpose and genre decide the voice.
+
+### 2. Quality priorities
+
+Judge in the following order. Do not damage an earlier condition to gain a
+later advantage.
+
+1. **Truthfulness and meaning**: facts, conditions, figures, quotations and uncertainty are preserved.
+2. **Fit for purpose**: it is clear what the reader should know and do after reading.
+3. **Structure and logic**: the order of information, each paragraph's center, and the relation of evidence to conclusion are visible.
+4. **Sentence accuracy**: agreement, reference, modification, tense and punctuation are correct.
+5. **Naturalness of expression**: the reader understands it immediately, in ordinary English word order and vocabulary.
+6. **Rhythm and voice**: pace, emphasis, repetition and pause fit the genre.
+
+A short sentence is not always better, nor a long one always worse. Split a
+sentence when it carries two different judgments or its modification becomes
+unclear. Join short sentences when the same beat, repeated, starts to read
+like a list of notes.
+
+### 3. English sentence principles
+
+**Agreement and reference**
+
+- Check that subject and verb agree, and that every pronoun has a clear antecedent — especially across a long or interrupted sentence.
+- Do not let a pronoun's referent drift when the subject of a paragraph changes. Name the actor again if the antecedent could be read two ways.
+- Keep a consistent point of view and tense inside one passage. Mark a shift in time or perspective explicitly rather than letting it happen mid-sentence.
+
+**Modifiers and structure**
+
+- Place a modifier next to what it modifies. A dangling or misplaced modifier — "Having finished the report, the meeting began" — attaches the action to the wrong actor; rewrite so the modifier's subject is the sentence's subject.
+- Keep parallel structure in a list, a pair joined by "and"/"or", or a comparison: matching grammatical form for matching logical role ("to plan, to build, and to ship," not "to plan, building, and for shipping").
+- Give one sentence one central judgment. Attach exceptions and conditions close enough to the term they qualify that a reader can tell what they apply to.
+
+**Nominalisation, passive voice and hidden agents**
+
+Notice these patterns and check whether they hide who is doing what, before
+cutting them automatically:
+
+- A weak verb paired with an abstract noun standing in for a real verb — "provide support" for *support*, "make a decision" for *decide*, "conduct an investigation" for *investigate*.
+- Chains of `-tion`/`-ment`/`-ance` nouns stacked into one noun phrase — "the implementation of the recommendation for the reduction of emissions."
+- Passive voice that drops the actor when the actor matters — "mistakes were made," "the request was denied" — versus passive used deliberately because the actor is unknown, unimportant, or already established.
+
+Unwind these into an active verb with a named subject when responsibility or
+action is the point. Keep a nominalisation that names a settled legal,
+academic or technical concept precisely.
+
+**Hedging and throat-clearing**
+
+- Cut phrases that announce a sentence instead of making it: "it is important to note that," "it should be mentioned that," "needless to say," "arguably."
+- Cut era-defining openers that could preface any topic: "in today's fast-paced world," "in an increasingly connected society," "since the dawn of."
+- Keep a hedge only when the uncertainty is real and specific — a stated confidence level, a named limitation — not as a reflex softener.
+
+**Spelling, style guide and punctuation**
+
+- Pick one spelling variant, US or UK, and hold it for the entire piece — not "colour" in one paragraph and "color" in the next.
+- Pick one named style guide (AP, Chicago, or a stated house style) and follow its rules for numerals, dates, titles and citation for the whole piece.
+- Decide the Oxford comma once and apply it consistently throughout, unless the house style forbids it.
+- Write numerals and dates the way the chosen style guide specifies, and do not switch conventions partway through.
+- Use quotation marks, dashes and hyphens the same way throughout one document.
+
+**Vocabulary and loan phrases**
+
+- Prefer a concrete verb and a specific noun over an impressive-sounding abstraction.
+- Use an evaluative word — "clearly," "significantly," "innovative" — only when the evidence in the piece supports it.
+- Keep a term consistent once chosen; do not rename the same thing with a rotating set of synonyms for variety's sake.
+- Judge a loanword, a piece of jargon or an industry term by whether the intended reader will understand it, not by where it came from. Keep a settled technical term or proper noun as is; gloss an unfamiliar one briefly on first use.
+
+### 4. Paragraphs and structure
+
+- Give one paragraph one central idea. The opening sentence or the surrounding context should make that center identifiable.
+- Follow a claim with whichever of evidence, example, figure or observation the claim needs.
+- Use a connective only when the relationship between paragraphs actually changes. Do not decorate with "also," "meanwhile," "therefore" out of habit.
+- Distinguish the order the reader needs from the order the writer discovered things in.
+- Open by stating the subject and the reader's reason to keep reading. Do not force attention with an inflated question or a grand declaration.
+- Close with a conclusion, a judgment, a resonant detail or a next step — not a slogan restating what was already said.
+
+Use a persuasive formula only when the purpose calls for it. Do not
+automatically insert an advertising problem–agitate–solve structure or a
+call to action into a news article, a meeting record, a report or an
+explainer.
+
+### 5. Rhythm and voice
+
+- Vary sentence length and ending to match the weight of the content.
+- Keep deliberate repetition when it serves emphasis, memory or a rise in feeling.
+- If the same contrastive construction, tricolon or flat declarative ending recurs as a habit, resolve it into a different relationship.
+- Read aloud and fix where breath runs out, where a break falls with no relation to meaning, and where consecutive sounds clash.
+- An author's voice comes from choice of observation, vocabulary, distance and rhythm, not from one sentence length or one catchphrase.
+
+## Pitfalls
+
+### The test for stripping AI clichés
+
+An AI cliché is not a specific word. It is **a sentence that could be
+attached anywhere without evidence**. Find and fix these in this order.
+
+1. Check each sentence for the role it plays in this piece. Delete it if it adds no new fact, judgment, evidence, condition, action, scene, or needed connection.
+2. Delete an opening or closing that would hold with the topic swapped out. Rewrite phrases like "in today's world," "now more than ever," "this has significant implications for us" only when there is a specific fact or judgment to replace them with.
+3. Unwind a contrast, tricolon or connective that has no real logical relationship behind it. Don't force artificial asymmetry either — follow the actual shape of the thinking.
+4. When abstract nouns and evaluative words pile up, state who did what and what changed. Don't fill the gap with stronger language when there is no evidence.
+5. Do not flatten every sentence into one smooth register. Preserve a source's way of observing, its distance, its field-specific vocabulary or deliberate rhythm where it exists.
+6. Cut sentences that narrate the piece's own progress — "this piece will examine," "as we have seen," "in conclusion, we can see that" — unless the reader genuinely needs them as signposts.
+7. For a sentence ending in "is important," "is necessary," "is expected," "is noteworthy," state who judges that and why, and what changes as a result. Delete the sentence if there is no evidence to state.
+8. If neighboring paragraphs all share the same claim–explain–emphasize shape, or every sentence ends at a similar length, merge or split them to match the actual weight of the ideas. Don't randomize sentence length for its own sake.
+9. Use a heading or subheading only when it classifies content or advances the argument. Don't chop a short piece into fragments, and don't repeat the heading's wording in the first sentence beneath it.
+
+Do not apply a banned-word list mechanically. The same phrase can be correct
+when it states a real relationship or the genre requires it. The test is
+whether the sentence adds real content to the piece, not whether a
+particular word appears.
+
+**A catalogue of English AI-cliché patterns** — fix these only when there is
+no real logic or rhythm behind them, not as a list of forbidden words:
+
+- Vague-verb filler: "delve into," "navigate," "unlock," "unpack," "harness the power of."
+- Metaphor-of-the-month nouns used as empty scaffolding: "tapestry," "landscape," "journey," "ecosystem."
+- The false-contrast frame repeated without a real contrast: "it's not just X, it's Y."
+- Mechanical tricolons of adjectives with no distinct content: "innovative, dynamic, and forward-thinking."
+- Em dash overuse as a substitute for choosing the right connective or punctuation.
+- Era-defining openers: "In today's fast-paced world," "In an increasingly digital age."
+- Slogan-style closings that restate the piece instead of ending it: "Ultimately, ...," "At the end of the day, ..."
+- Manufactured significance with no named source: "This is a testament to," "This speaks volumes about," "game-changer," "a paradigm shift."
+- A rhetorical question used as an opener to manufacture urgency: "Have you ever wondered...?"
+- A stock transition into the body that adds nothing: "Let's dive in," "Without further ado."
+
+Read the relevant section only of
+[Genre Writing Guide](references/genres.md) when a genre-specific judgment is
+needed.
+
+## Procedure by Task
+
+### Write
+
+1. Lock purpose, reader, evidence and format.
+2. Set the order of information the reader will follow.
+3. In the first draft, do not leave out content.
+4. Revise in order: paragraph, sentence, vocabulary, rhythm.
+5. Check meaning and form against the source.
+
+Do not manufacture a plausible-sounding fact, figure, quotation or
+experience the evidence does not contain. Keep an illustrative assumption or
+example clearly separate from actual fact in the opening and conclusion.
+
+After the first draft, revise exactly four more times. First, find missing
+facts and logical leaps. Second, fix paragraph order and center. Third, fix
+agreement, reference, modification and vocabulary. Fourth, read aloud and
+smooth rhythm and clutter. If a later pass would damage the accuracy an
+earlier pass established, revert it.
+
+### Diagnose
+
+Do not change the source. Answer in this order.
+
+- What to preserve.
+- Findings: severity, exact location, effect on the reader, reason to change it.
+- What a human must decide.
+- Overall verdict.
+
+Separate taste from error. Do not flag a problem you cannot pin to a
+location and a reader effect.
+
+### Revise
+
+- Keep what is already accurate and natural.
+- Be able to state the problem each change solves.
+- Do not swap a synonym, split a sentence or change punctuation only to look different.
+- Stop at `needs-human` when the ambiguity is too great to safely settle fact or intent.
+
+### Carry over from another language
+
+Do not trace the shell of the foreign sentence. Rebuild it by unit of
+meaning. The order of information and sentence boundaries can change, but
+keep facts, logic, conditions, attitude and the precision of technical terms
+intact.
+
+## Preservation Contract
+
+When there is a source or written brief, do not add, remove, strengthen or
+soften the following.
+
+- Facts, quotations, the author's stance and stated uncertainty.
+- Numbers, dates, versions, units, comparisons and conditions.
+- Commands, paths, URLs, error codes, product names and identifiers.
+- Exceptions, limits, risks, approvals, how to roll back and next actions.
+- The actor, owner, handoff relationship and publishing authority.
+- Requested document structure: heading levels, lists, tables, links, code blocks.
+
+Compare the revision against the source afterward. Do not use a revision
+that an automated check or a meaning audit rejects. Do not record a failure
+as "no change needed."
+
+## Verification
+
+- Are the facts and meaning inside the evidence given?
+- Do the sentences and structure show the purpose, reader and genre?
+- Are the actor, condition, referent and agreement of each sentence clear?
+- Does each paragraph have a center, and does it connect to the one before and after?
+- Where clearer, more natural English was available, was a loanword or jargon used out of habit instead?
+- Is a settled technical term or proper noun left alone rather than forced into a substitute?
+- Do sentence length, ending, contrast and listing avoid falling into one repeated mold?
+- Are every requested fact, figure, address, code block, markdown element and approval condition still present?
+- Would the opening and closing sentence fail to hold if dropped into a piece about a different topic?
+- Does each sentence actually add information or judgment the previous one lacked?
+- After the showy evaluative words are removed, is there still enough fact and logic left standing?
+- Do paragraph length and sentence ending repeat as a mold rather than because the content calls for it?
+- Do the headline, opening, body and closing avoid repeating the same claim in different words?
+- Can every pronoun's antecedent and every judgment's source and basis be found immediately?
+- Is there a sentence or paragraph an editor could delete without changing the information or the argument?
+- Can you trace from conclusion back to evidence, and from figure or quotation back to source?
+- Have the outlet's length, formatting and tone rules been confirmed? If not, has that gap been stated rather than hidden?

package/skills/antislop-en/references/editorial-review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+# Independent Editorial Review
+
+This procedure applies to English manuscripts bound for a reporter,
+columnist, chief editor or outside institution. It does not apply
+automatically to routine email, memos and drafts.
+
+## Principles
+
+- The writer and the reviewers must be different agents. The writer does not impersonate a reviewer and self-certify.
+- Do not give a reviewer the writing process, the writer's self-assessment, or the answer the writer intended.
+- A reviewer does not rewrite the manuscript. It returns only the exact point of rejection, the effect on the reader, and the condition for fixing it.
+- Separate style preference from defect. A stylistic difference that cannot be pinned to a location and a reader effect is not grounds for rejection.
+- Every properly formatted rejection item must be fixed or escalated to a human. The writing agent may not invalidate an item or apply only some of them at its own discretion.
+
+## Reviewers
+
+The two reviewers live as prompts in the vibe package under `reviewers/en/`,
+and the same content is installed as client agents (Claude Code:
+`agents/en-copy-editor.md`, `agents/en-chief-editor.md`; Codex: TOML files
+under the plugin tree).
+
+| Stage | Reviewer | Role |
+|---|---|---|
+| 1st | `en-copy-editor` | Copy editor: judges sentence, usage and formatting defects |
+| 2nd | `en-chief-editor` | Chief editor: judges whether the piece is fit to publish or submit |
+
+## The harness reviews
+
+Inside vibe, the model does not run the review itself. Bind a `review` check
+to the manuscript in a scenario, and `vibe check` has the harness run the two
+reviewers in sequence.
+
+```yaml
+- id: column-review
+  then: the column passes the copy editor and the chief editor
+  check: { type: review, path: out/column.md, contract: out/contract.md, evidence: out/evidence.md }
+```
+
+- `path` is the full manuscript under review, `contract` is the editorial contract, and `evidence` is the evidence ledger. Both can be omitted, but a manuscript for outside submission should keep both as files. If `lang` is not set, the harness infers it from the manuscript's script.
+- The harness runs `reviewers/en/copy-editor.md` first, and only on a pass runs `reviewers/en/chief-editor.md`. A stage passes only when the entire response is exactly one line, `PASS`. Any response that differs from the `REJECT` list format counts as a failure, and the response is kept in evidence's `tail`.
+- If the same failure repeats twice, the harness stops at STUCK and asks in the inbox. The writer fixes the `REJECT` items with the smallest possible change and reruns `vibe check`. If an item conflicts with the evidence or only enforces a preference and cannot be fixed, don't discard it — hand it to `vibe ask` along with the conflict.
+
+## Reviewer input bundle
+
+The harness passes each reviewer only the following. It does not include the
+writing process or the writer's self-assessment.
+
+1. Editorial contract: outlet, section, reader, purpose, length, register, formatting rules and deadline status.
+2. Evidence ledger: facts, figures and quotations with sources, the author's own experience and interpretation, and what remains unconfirmed.
+3. The full manuscript under review: title, body, tables, notes and sources, none omitted.
+
+If the input bundle lacks the actual submission specification or key
+evidence, the reviewer does not pretend to proceed with review — it returns
+`NEEDS-HUMAN`. The harness records that as a failure too.
+
+## Outside vibe
+
+In an environment with this skill but no harness, launch the same two
+reviewers directly as separate agents (Claude Code: the Agent tool; Codex:
+spawning a subagent). Call the second only after the first returns `PASS`,
+and use only completed call results for judgment. If an agent cannot be
+launched, do not claim independent review took place — state that human
+editorial review is needed.
+
+## Handling delegation failure
+
+- Use only a completed agent call's result for judgment. A background task's start response, progress logs, and an agent's self-report are not a `PASS`.
+- `PASS` counts only when the entire response, after trimming surrounding whitespace, is exactly one line, `PASS`. An explanation, warning or condition appended after `PASS` is not a pass. Any other response must be a complete `REJECT` list; a tool error, timeout, empty response, truncated response, or any response with a different format all count as a review failure.
+- On a review failure, rerun the same kind of review once with the same input. If the retry also fails, treat it as not having passed independent review and stop at `needs-human`.
+- If a `REJECT` item is missing a required field, treat it as a format error. The writer does not guess the intended meaning and fix it anyway.
+
+## Termination conditions
+
+- The manuscript is final only when the first and second stages both PASS the same version in sequence.
+- Any edit, even one, voids a prior PASS.
+- The writer has no authority to waive a properly formatted `REJECT` item. Even a single item that cannot be fixed stops the process at `needs-human` instead of shipping a final version.
+- The full revision cycle runs at most three times. If the third cycle is still `REJECT`, stop at `needs-human` with the unresolved items and the human decision needed.
+- Do not comply with a reviewer's demand for a change that conflicts with the evidence. Escalate to `needs-human` with the point of conflict and the source evidence.
+- Present the requested manuscript first in the final response. Include the review process and score sheet only when asked for.

package/skills/antislop-en/references/genres.md

@@ -0,0 +1,145 @@
+# Genre Writing Guide
+
+Shared principles live in the parent `SKILL.md`. This document adds only the
+judgments that change by genre. No section requires imitating one person's
+fixed style.
+
+## News articles
+
+- Put the most important new fact and its consequence at the top.
+- Separate fact, statement and interpretation at the sentence level, and attribute each to its source.
+- Do not let a headline assert more strongly than the body. Do not write an unconfirmed causal link as if it were established.
+- Add only as much background as the current story needs to be understood.
+
+## Columns and essays
+
+- Do not hide whose viewpoint and judgment this is.
+- Use an example as evidence that moves the argument, not decoration around a claim.
+- When moving from personal experience to a general conclusion, state the limit of that move.
+- End with a change in judgment or an open question, not a slogan repeating what was already said.
+
+## Print pieces
+
+- Reflect the page's hierarchy — headline, subhead, body, sidebar — in the sentences themselves.
+- Manage abbreviations and pronoun references so the piece reads without flipping back and forth.
+- In a narrow column, check that a long number, address or English-language block does not break the reading flow.
+- Because this is read with the eye rather than heard, keep paragraph breaks and punctuation unambiguous.
+
+### Newspaper columns
+
+- Narrow the topic to one sentence and do not hide the writer's judgment. Do not lay out several issues like a department store display.
+- Open from a scene, a person, a figure, a statement or a specific document. Do not set the mood first with an era diagnosis or a grand question.
+- An example must be evidence for the thesis. Avoid attaching an interesting anecdote and never connecting it back to the argument.
+- Separate fact, interpretation and the writer's value judgment at the sentence level. Do not build a straw-man counter-argument; state the strongest version of it, then answer it.
+- Within the column's limited space, each paragraph must advance the thesis by one step. If the same judgment repeats in different words, merge or cut paragraphs.
+- Do not close with a moral, a lecture to the reader, or vague hope. End with a judgment drawn from the evidence above, a remaining contradiction, a concrete choice, or a scene worth returning to.
+
+## Speeches
+
+- Recap the key terms and logical steps so an audience can follow on a single hearing.
+- Adjust sentence length for the speaker's breath and points of emphasis.
+- Make address, responsible party, promise and request explicit.
+- Use repetition and parallelism only when they build memory or an emotional arc.
+
+### Official statements and addresses
+
+- Distinguish an inaugural address, a commemorative speech, a policy address, a crisis statement and an apology. Do not fill every text with grand rhetoric and patriotic symbols just because the register is official.
+- Name the audience precisely at the opening and state the occasion and subject of the remarks. Include ceremonial thanks and historical rhetoric only when the audience needs them to understand the situation.
+- Do not blur together the confirmed situation, the government's judgment, the state's and the speaker's responsibility, decisions already made, actions to come, and what is being asked of the public.
+- In a statement addressing wrongdoing or harm, state the harm and the responsibility in active sentences. Do not substitute an apology with language that erases the actor and the harm — "it is regrettable that," "there was confusion."
+- Attach an actor, a target, a means and a verifiable date to every policy commitment. Do not assert an outcome beyond the speaker's authority or an effect that has not been measured.
+- When invoking unity, history or sacrifice, tie it to the actual matter at hand. Do not substitute feeling with unsupported repetition of "a great people," "a new leap forward," "our united strength."
+- Make sure one breath, read aloud, carries one central judgment. Use repeated address, parallelism and refrain only where they mark a logical division or emphasize responsibility.
+- Close with what the government will do first and the standard by which the public can check it, rather than a vague call to join in.
+
+## Fiction and narrative
+
+- Before naming an emotion in exposition, check whether it can be shown through action, sensation, choice and scene instead.
+- Respect point of view and the boundary of what each character can know.
+- Do not let every character share the same range of observation and vocabulary.
+- Distinguish unfamiliar phrasing from a broken sentence. Keep a deliberate departure from convention when it earns its effect.
+
+## Scripts and dialogue
+
+- Don't pad dialogue to sound like speech; instead, let each character's purpose and relationship show through what they say.
+- Don't have characters explain to the audience facts they already know each other, in a way that isn't natural for them.
+- Keep stage and action directions to what filming, performance or listening actually needs.
+- For subtitled or voiced material, check breath-length per line, homophones, and overlap between what is shown on screen and what is said.
+
+### News and current-affairs reports
+
+- Lead with the newest fact, attributed and timestamped. Divide roles between anchor introduction, reporter package and interview so the same information isn't repeated three times.
+- Don't merely describe in words what the footage already shows. Use narration to add cause, scale, sequence and meaning that the footage doesn't carry.
+- Give only as many numbers as can be compared in one breath, and state the basis first. Trim a quotation without losing the speaker's standing and context.
+- Keep reported fact separate from the reporter's interpretation, and don't convert allegation, estimate or unconfirmed status into a flat declarative.
+
+### Documentary narration
+
+- Let the scene speak first; use narration to bridge time and connect context the footage can't show on its own.
+- Don't prescribe emotion in advance with words like "heartbreaking" or "astonishing." Let a subject's action, voice, setting and choices generate the feeling.
+- Don't read written material aloud unchanged; rewrite it in word order the ear can follow. Unwind repeated sounds, long modifying clauses and parenthetical asides.
+
+### Short-form and online video
+
+- Open with concrete information or conflict the viewer will get, not manufactured urgency or an inflated question.
+- Watch pacing of delivery and cut timing together, not just the runtime in seconds. Give each shot one function for the words spoken over it.
+- Don't substitute pressure phrases like "shocking," "chilling," "you have to," "did you not know this yet?" for the actual strength of the fact.
+- Don't transcribe the audio in the captions; compress them to what needs to be read — names, figures, points of contrast.
+
+### Interviews, talk and drama dialogue
+
+- Don't load a question with its own answer, or ask about two issues at once. Build a follow-up question from a specific word in the previous answer.
+- Don't let every speaker talk like a finished essay. Vary vocabulary, omission, hesitation and sentence length by what each person knows, their relationship, purpose and emotion.
+- Don't scatter filler and slang just to imitate speech. Every line should be doing something to the other person.
+
+## Public and legal documents
+
+- State rights, obligations, prohibitions, exceptions, deadlines and the responsible party precisely.
+- When simplifying language, do not widen or narrow the legal concept or its scope of application.
+- Do not swap a defined term for a synonym; use the same word throughout.
+- Let the reader find what they must do in the order of condition, procedure, deadline, then contact.
+
+## Technical documents
+
+- State the outcome the user will get and the prerequisites first.
+- Preserve commands, paths, versions, code and option names exactly as given.
+- Give one step one verifiable action, with the expected result and what to do on failure.
+- Keep settled terms like "API," "JSON" or a product name, but gloss what a first-time reader needs.
+
+## Reports, minutes and operational records
+
+- Distinguish observed fact, interpretation, decision and open item.
+- When a conclusion and its evidence sit apart, add a heading or reference so each can be found from the other.
+- Do not drop the owner, deadline, dependency or approval status.
+- In minutes, preserve the decision and the responsibility accurately, not the speaker's exact phrasing.
+
+### Reports to a chief editor
+
+- Make the report's purpose, key conclusion and the matter needing a decision findable on the first screen or page. Don't bury the conclusion under a long run-up of background.
+- Mark fact, reporting result, interpretation, proposal and unconfirmed item with distinct labels in sentences and tables. Don't write an unsourced "industry sources say" or "sources indicate."
+- Attach immediately checkable evidence to every conclusion, or point to the section, table or source that carries it. When the evidence supports only part of a conclusion, narrow the claim and state the limit.
+- Attach a reference date, population, unit, point of comparison and source to every figure. Don't rename the same concept with different terms, and don't use the same term for two different things.
+- Don't lay out material and leave the judgment to the reader. State what the material means, what the options are, what you recommend, and the cost and risk of that recommendation.
+- Run a deletion test on every paragraph. If removing it would not change the conclusion, evidence, condition or action, delete it or fold it into a paragraph that needs it.
+- Let the heading show the report's actual status. Don't dress up a draft under review, a tentative finding or a matter still being investigated with the same definite-sounding heading as a settled decision.
+
+## Card news and presentation slides
+
+- Give each screen one central claim or fact, and don't let the title and body repeat the same words.
+- Even when shortened, don't change the meaning by dropping the actor, condition, basis of comparison or source.
+- Let a single card be understood on its own, while keeping the flow and conclusion connected across cards.
+- In a presenter's script, don't just read the on-screen text aloud; spell out the evidence, examples and reason for each transition in speech.
+
+## Email and business prose
+
+- Make the purpose and what the recipient must do findable in the first paragraph.
+- Separate necessary background, the request or answer, and the deadline and responsible party.
+- Don't let politeness blur the key judgment, and don't stack unnecessary hedges.
+- Let the subject line state the email's business and status precisely, and make clear whether a reply is needed.
+
+## Blog and social posts
+
+- Let the title and first paragraph accurately preview the actual content.
+- Don't reach for a claim stronger than the evidence, manufactured urgency or an inflated question just to catch attention.
+- Work search terms naturally into context rather than repeating the same phrase mechanically.
+- Include a call to action only when the piece's purpose calls for one, and keep it to one clear ask.