@tw93/waza 3.25.0

package/skills/write/references/write-en.md

@@ -0,0 +1,197 @@
+## English Scenario
+
+Eliminate predictable AI writing patterns. Write like a human: varied, imperfect, specific.
+
+### Core Rules
+
+1. **Cut filler phrases.** Remove throat-clearing openers, emphasis crutches, and all adverbs.
+2. **Break formulaic structures.** Avoid binary contrasts, negative listings, dramatic fragmentation, rhetorical setups, false agency.
+3. **Use active voice.** Every sentence needs a human subject doing something. No inanimate objects performing human actions ("the complaint becomes a fix").
+4. **Be specific.** No vague declaratives ("The reasons are structural"). Name the specific thing. No lazy extremes ("every," "always," "never") doing vague work.
+5. **Put the reader in the room.** No narrator-from-a-distance voice. "You" beats "People." Specifics beat abstractions.
+6. **Vary rhythm.** Mix sentence lengths. Two items beat three. End paragraphs differently. No em dashes.
+7. **Trust readers.** State facts directly. Skip softening, justification, hand-holding.
+8. **Cut quotables.** If it sounds like a pull-quote, rewrite it.
+9. **Do not replace one formula with another.** “Human” does not mean slangy, quirky, or performatively casual.
+10. **No emoji.** Remove any emoji from the text being edited.
+
+### Word Choice
+
+Examples, not exhaustive -- any word used to signal importance rather than to say something is suspect.
+
+**Overused adverbs: kill them all:**
+"quietly", "deeply", "fundamentally", "remarkably", "arguably", "certainly", "really", "just", "literally", "genuinely", "honestly", "simply", "actually"
+
+> NO: "quietly orchestrating workflows" / "fundamentally reshape how we think"
+> OK: Say what it does. Drop the adverb.
+
+**AI vocabulary: replace with plain language:**
+
+| Avoid | Use instead |
+|-------|-------------|
+| delve (into) | examine, look at, explore |
+| leverage (as verb) | use |
+| utilize | use |
+| robust | strong, reliable, solid |
+| streamline | simplify, cut |
+| harness | use, apply |
+| navigate (challenges) | handle, address |
+| unpack | explain, examine |
+| paradigm | system, approach, model |
+| synergy | combination, cooperation |
+| ecosystem | community, network, field |
+| tapestry | mix, combination |
+| landscape | situation, field, area |
+| game-changer | significant, important |
+| deep dive | analysis, examination |
+| moving forward | next, from now |
+
+**Pompous copulas: use "is" instead:**
+> NO: "serves as", "stands as", "marks", "represents"
+> OK: "is"
+
+### Sentence Structures to Avoid
+
+Examples, not exhaustive -- any construction that performs insight rather than delivers it belongs here.
+
+**Negative parallelism**: the single most common AI tell:
+> NO: "It's not bold. It's backwards." / "Not because X, but because Y." / "The question isn't X. The question is Y."
+> OK: State Y directly. Drop the negation entirely.
+
+**Negative countdown:**
+> NO: "Not a bug. Not a feature. A fundamental design flaw."
+> OK: "It's a fundamental design flaw."
+
+**Rhetorical self-questions:**
+> NO: "The result? Devastating." / "The worst part? Nobody saw it coming."
+> OK: State it: "The result was devastating."
+
+**Anaphora abuse**: repeating the same sentence opener:
+> NO: "They assume that... They assume that... They assume that..."
+> OK: Combine or restructure. One statement, clear subject.
+
+**Tricolon abuse**: rule of three, used three times back to back:
+> NO: "Products impress people; platforms empower them. Products solve problems; platforms create worlds."
+> OK: Make the point once, cleanly.
+
+**False ranges:**
+> NO: "From innovation to cultural transformation" (what's in between?)
+> OK: List the two things directly, or pick one.
+
+**Dramatic fragmentation**: manufactured emphasis via fragments:
+> NO: "He published this. Openly. In a book. As a priest."
+> OK: Complete sentences. Trust content over presentation.
+
+**False agency**: inanimate objects performing human verbs:
+> NO: "the complaint becomes a fix" / "the decision emerges" / "the data tells us"
+> OK: Name the human. "Someone fixed it." "The team decided."
+
+### Tone Patterns to Avoid
+
+**False suspense transitions:**
+> NO: "Here's the kicker." / "Here's the thing." / "Here's where it gets interesting."
+> OK: Make the point. No buildup.
+
+**Patronizing analogies:**
+> NO: "Think of it like a highway system for data." / "Think of it as a Swiss Army knife."
+> OK: Explain the concept directly. If an analogy helps, test it against three criteria before keeping it: (1) remove it and the paragraph collapses: it is load-bearing, not decorative; (2) push it one layer deeper and it still holds; (3) the reader gets it without further explanation. If it fails any of these, drop the analogy and state the idea directly.
+
+**Futurist invitation:**
+> NO: "Imagine a world where every tool you use has a quiet intelligence behind it..."
+> OK: Describe what actually exists or what you're actually proposing.
+
+**False vulnerability**: performative self-awareness:
+> NO: "And yes, I'm openly in love with the platform model"
+> OK: Real vulnerability is specific and uncomfortable. Skip the polish.
+
+**Asserting simplicity instead of proving it:**
+> NO: "The reality is simpler and less flattering" / "History is clear"
+> OK: Show the evidence. Don't announce the conclusion before it.
+
+**Grandiose stakes inflation:**
+> NO: "This will fundamentally reshape how we think about everything." / "will define the next era of computing"
+> OK: Say what it actually does.
+
+**Pedagogical hand-holding:**
+> NO: "Let's break this down step by step." / "Let's unpack what this really means."
+> OK: Start with the content, not an announcement of the content.
+
+**Vague attributions:**
+> NO: "Experts argue..." / "Industry reports suggest..." / "Observers have cited..."
+> OK: Name the expert, link the report, quote the person. If you can't, you don't have a source.
+
+**Invented concept labels**: compound labels that sound analytical but aren't grounded:
+> NO: "the supervision paradox" / "the acceleration trap" / "workload creep"
+> OK: Describe the thing directly. Don't name it as if it's an established term.
+
+### Paragraph & Composition Patterns to Avoid
+
+**Short punchy fragments as paragraphs:**
+> NO: "These weren't just products. And the software side matched. Then it professionalised."
+> OK: Complete sentences. No staccato drama.
+
+**Bold-first bullets**: every bullet starts with a bolded phrase:
+> NO: "**Security**: Environment-based configuration..." / "**Performance**: Lazy loading..."
+> OK: Write bullets as sentences, or drop the bold. Not every list needs labels.
+
+**Fractal summaries**: "what I'm going to tell you; what I'm telling you; what I just told you":
+> NO: "In this section, we'll explore... [3000 words later] ...as we've seen in this section."
+> OK: Skip the preview and the recap. Write the content.
+> Exception: a single closing sentence in a TL;DR that orients non-specialist readers to the structure ahead ("The rest of this piece follows X in order...") is intentional navigation, not a fractal summary. Keep it; flag it at most, but do not delete without author approval.
+
+**Signposted conclusions:**
+> NO: "In conclusion..." / "To sum up..." / "In summary..."
+> OK: End. Don't announce that you're ending.
+
+**The dead metaphor**: one metaphor used 10 times across a piece:
+> NO: "The ecosystem needs ecosystems to build ecosystem value."
+> OK: Use a metaphor once, then move on.
+
+**Historical analogy stacking:**
+> NO: "Apple didn't build Uber. Facebook didn't build Spotify. Stripe didn't build Shopify."
+> OK: Make the point. One example is enough.
+
+**One-point dilution**: same argument restated 10 ways across 4000 words:
+> OK: Say it once. Add evidence or move on.
+
+**"Despite its challenges..." formula:**
+> NO: "Despite these challenges, the initiative continues to thrive."
+> OK: Either address the challenges or don't raise them.
+
+**It's worth noting / It bears mentioning:**
+> NO: "It's worth noting that this approach has limitations." / "Notably," / "Importantly,"
+> OK: Say the thing directly. Skip the announcement.
+
+### Quick Checks Before Delivering Prose
+
+- Any adverbs? Kill them.
+- Any passive voice? Find the actor, make them the subject.
+- Inanimate thing doing a human verb? Name the person.
+- Sentence starts with "Here's"? Cut to the point.
+- Any "not X, it's Y" contrasts? State Y directly.
+- Three consecutive sentences match length? Break one.
+- Paragraph ends with punchy one-liner? Vary it.
+- Em-dash anywhere? Remove it.
+- Vague declarative ("The implications are significant")? Name the specific implication.
+- Meta-joiners ("The rest of this essay...")? Delete. Exception: a single TL;DR closing sentence that orients readers to the structure ahead is navigation, not filler. Keep it.
+- Any bullet starting with bold label? Reconsider the format.
+- Any "In conclusion" or "To sum up"? Cut it.
+- Any emoji? Remove it.
+
+### Scoring
+
+Rate 1-10 on each dimension:
+
+| Dimension | Question |
+|-----------|----------|
+| Directness | Statements or announcements? |
+| Rhythm | Varied or metronomic? |
+| Trust | Respects reader intelligence? |
+| Authenticity | Sounds human? |
+| Density | Anything cuttable? |
+
+Below 35/50: revise.
+
+---
+
+**Bottom line: varied, imperfect, specific. Any single trope used once may be fine. The problem is when multiple appear together or one repeats.**

package/skills/write/references/write-zh-bilingual.md

@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+# 中英双语规则
+
+## 双语一致性检查
+
+**中英混排格式**（来自 mzlogin/chinese-copywriting-guidelines）：
+- 中文和英文字符之间加空格：`CN文字EN` → `CN 文字 EN`
+- 不混用标点：中文用 `、。？！；：`，不用英文逗号/句号
+- 术语跨全文一致
+
+**中文里的英文**：标记出现的未翻译英文，建议翻译或加说明。
+
+**双语对**：确认 EN 和 CN 版本传达的意思相同；标记翻译损失。
+
+## 英文术语首次出现规则
+
+- 首次出现：保留英文 + 中文注解，或中文前置 + 英文括注（`指令微调（Instruction tuning）`）
+- 后续出现：只用中文，不要英中混用
+- 例外：SFT、RL、MoE 这类已成行业通用缩写，全程保留缩写形式
+
+**常见可替换词**：context→上下文、state→状态、cache→缓存、claim→断言、runtime→运行时、contract→契约
+
+## 有稳定中文对译的英文词
+
+中文技术圈已有通用译法的，换中文：
+
+| 英文 | 推荐中文 |
+|------|----------|
+| context | 上下文 |
+| state | 状态 |
+| cache | 缓存 |
+| claim | 断言 |
+| runtime | 运行时 |
+
+术语在中文圈还未收敛的（prompt、embedding、tokenizer），保留英文合理。
+
+## 翻译腔套路（主动排查）
+
+**物理动作动词**：接住、击穿、锋利、不崩、不爆、打穿、扛住，这类词把抽象认知过程想象成了物理动作（骨架是英文 catch/pierce/sharp）。换成日常中文：你这几条我都收到了 / 这个假设不成立。
+
+**形容词预判+冒号**："更干净："、"逻辑很清晰："引出内容。删掉形容词，只留后面事实。
+
+**抽象名词做主语**："工程上的现实比这些数字难看"这种骨架，凡碰到"X 的 Y 比 Z 更 W"，重写让人/动作做主语。
+
+**有稳定对译词直接混入**："context 不崩、state 可恢复"—— 换成中文。
+
+## 双语并列的排版
+
+中英双语 release notes 的排版：
+
+- 英文版在前，中文版在后（或分两个段落）
+- 条目编号一一对应
+- 专有名词（产品名、功能名）在两种语言里保持一致
+- 不要在同一条内中英混写
+
+## 标点规则
+
+- 中文标点：`，。；：！？、""『』【】`
+- 英文在中文句子中出现时用中文标点断句
+- 禁止用破折号（—），用逗号或分号替代
+- `bold 小标题 + 句号` 改为 `bold 小标题 + 逗号`（内联而非独立标题）

package/skills/write/references/write-zh-prose.md

@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+# 中文散文核心规则
+
+技术长文的去 AI 味和自然化。完整规则见 `write-zh.md`，本文摘录最高频的 10 类改写模式。
+
+## 最高优先级：保语义 > 去 AI 味
+
+先确认事实、逻辑、因果不变，再做以下改写。如果为"更口语"改坏原意，属于失败改写。
+
+## 高频 AI 痕迹（首先检查）
+
+**1. 段末收尾总结句**：一段刚解释完某机制，结尾再重述一遍。识别信号："到这里"、"这说明"、"这本身就是"、"可以看出"开头，或者段落最后一句比其他句短且抽象。直接删掉。
+
+**2. 升华句**：把具体工程观察上升到普适人生道理。直接给出具体建议，不升华。
+
+**3. 对比句式**："不是…而是…"、"X 本身没有价值，真正有用的是 Y"、"X 已经不是瓶颈，Y 才是"。直接说结论，不用对比框架铺垫。
+
+**4. bold 小标题模式**：`**xxx**。content` 改为 `**xxx**，content`，让 bold 变成承重词，不是独立小标题。例外：bold 部分本身是完整句子时保留句号。
+
+**5. 章节引介过渡句**：章节开头或结尾写"上面这些模式解决的是…，下面再看…"。直接删掉，章节标题本身已经承接。
+
+**6. 空泛形容词预判**："更干净："、"逻辑很清晰："，形容词抢先下判断。删掉形容词，只留后面的事实。
+
+**7. 工整并列 bold 标题**：四个 bold 标题全是同一格式。每个点语气不同，或改成散文叙述。
+
+**8. 段内重复**：同一段把同一意思用不同措辞说两遍。说一遍，够了。
+
+**9. 讲解腔起手**："真拆开看"、"这背后是同一个变化"、"真正关键的问题是"。删掉，直接说。
+
+**10. 训人感起手**："先问问是不是"、"你要先明白"。改成"可以先看"、"先确认"。
+
+## 句式规则
+
+- 禁止用破折号（—），用逗号或分号代替
+- 四五个句号连发、每句很短 = 打电报，合成长句或用逗号连
+- 单独成段的一两句话，多半是上一段的收尾，直接并进去
+- 不用"首先…其次…最后"，用"一方面…另一方面…"
+
+## 用词去正式化
+
+| 不用 | 用 |
+|------|-----|
+| 非常/极其 | 很 |
+| 综上所述 | 直接收尾 |
+| 例如 | 比如 |
+| 购买/使用 | 买/用 |
+| 值得注意的是 | 直接说结论 |
+
+完整规则、AI 味检测所有模式、标题设计、引号/括号/分号规则见 `write-zh.md`。

package/skills/write/references/write-zh-release-notes.md

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+# 对外发文专项：release notes 和推文
+
+## 推文 / 社交发文五规则
+
+适用于已有社区语气和轻量发布节奏的产品工程师项目对外发文：
+
+1. **社区先行**：开头用社会锚点（star 数、感谢用户、谁的反馈推动了这次修复）。改动清单跟在后面，不放在最前。
+2. **亮点不全量**：挑 2 到 4 个最有意思的改动。跳过整个模块也没问题。读者要的是故事，不是 changelog。
+3. **用户感受帧**：每条写法用"你用它的时候…"或"有一种…的感觉"，不是"这个工具做了…"。
+4. **一条立场**：至少一句表明决策原因的意见句（例："我更相信模型本身的能力，而非各种规则限制他的天花板"）。
+5. **中文节奏**：用地道表达（给留了一手、玩玩、大伙、大概就是这些）。避免翻译腔和正式词（具体判据、主轴、本意）。
+
+结尾用邀请，不用 CTA：「假如没有用过的小伙伴，欢迎去试试看，玩玩。」而不是「立即升级」。
+
+## Release Notes 格式
+
+**结构**：Breaking Changes → New Features → Fixes & Improvements → Deprecations
+
+**格式**：优先匹配目标项目最近一次 release。没有可用参考时，使用编号列表、bold 标签、一句话说用户效果；只有目标项目已经使用中英双语时才输出双语。
+
+**长度参考**：和上一个版本 release 的条目数、句子长度、密度匹配。不要自创新格式。
+
+## 对外发文专项检查
+
+公开发文交出去之前，扫三件事：
+
+**1. 身份和敏感信号脱敏**：不出现可反推作者身份的细节（雇主、地点、简历式表述）。技术决策可以具体，身份信息默认删。
+
+**2. 不踩竞品**：介绍自己产品时不主动贬低同类产品。直接说自己做了什么、为什么。
+
+**3. 用户感受先于功能清单**：先给一句场景或感受，再进改动细节。不要开场就列功能。
+
+## 发版前检查
+
+- 不出现"不再更新"、"final release"、"停止维护"等终止信号（除非是真实情况）
+- release title 简洁：版本号 + 最核心的改动或主题，不超过 10 个词
+- 中英版本条目数一一对应
+- 建议 5 到 8 条，每条一句话