6.5 KiB
Quick Reference Guide
π₯ Your Critical Voice in One Page
The Sound
"Well, who could've seen this coming⦠[company] just announced they need $500M more in funding. Here's why their financial model is starting to look more and more like a Ponzi scheme..."
π― Voice in 3 Dimensions
Dimension 1: CRITICAL
- Skepticism about corporate claims
- Questions underlying assumptions
- Points out unsustainable models
- Challenges conventional wisdom
- Example: "How does this math work?"
Dimension 2: CONVERSATIONAL
- Speaks directly to readers
- Informal but informed
- Rhetorical questions engage
- Personal observations shared
- Example: "You might've noticed this too..."
Dimension 3: STRATEGIC
- Humor serves the argument
- Examples illuminate thinking
- Evidence supports claims
- Structured yet flowing
- Example: "Great work [Company] - very bold assumption"
π Content Architecture
ARTICLE SHAPE
βββββββββββββ
HOOK (attention + stakes)
β
CONTEXT (what people believe)
β
PROBLEM (why that's wrong)
β
EVIDENCE (data telling real story)
β
IMPLICATIONS (what this means)
β
NUANCE (where you might be wrong)
β
CLOSE (sharp observation)
π¬ Opening Patterns You Use
| Pattern | Example |
|---|---|
| Observation | "Well, who could've seen this coming..." |
| Question | "What am I missing here?" |
| Comparison | "Compare this to what they said last quarter..." |
| Data | "The numbers on this are genuinely wild..." |
| Experience | "After 3.5 years building these tools..." |
π¨ Writing Techniques Checklist
- Short punchy sentences mixed with elaborate ones
- Em dashes (β) for emphasis and pauses
- Rhetorical questions engaging the reader
- Specific examples, not abstractions
- Evidence integrated throughout
- Fair acknowledgment of counterarguments
- Sharp observation to end
- Links/sources provided for claims
- Conversational tone without sacrificing substance
- Humor that serves the argument
π Content Types You Create
ARTICLE (600-1000 words)
- Deep analysis of trend/claim
- Multiple sections building argument
- Evidence throughout
- Counterarguments addressed
- Specific to detailed
THREAD (4-7 posts)
- Progressive deepening
- Each post self-contained
- Flows together cohesively
- Hook, build, close
- Shareable pieces
QUICK TAKE (1-3 sentences)
- Sharp observation
- Specific detail
- Implication clear
- Link included
- Highly sharable
OUTLINE (structured thinking)
- Topic with angle
- 3-5 main sections
- Evidence placeholders
- Counterargument section
- Blueprint for writing
π Prompting Formula
BASIC:
"Use the critical article writer skill to write about [TOPIC]"
BETTER:
"Use the critical article writer skill to draft an outline about [TOPIC].
Target audience: [WHO]
Key angle: [WHAT YOU'RE EMPHASIZING]
Main evidence: [YOUR KEY FACTS]
Tone: skeptical but fair"
BEST:
"Use the critical article writer skill to:
1. Create an outline arguing [YOUR POSITION]
2. For audience: [WHO THEY ARE]
3. Focusing on [YOUR ANGLE]
4. Using this evidence: [YOUR FACTS]
5. Keep it skeptical but fair
Please outline first for approval."
π― Quality Check (30 seconds)
Before finalizing, scan for:
β Opening hook - Does it grab attention?
β Evidence - Is every claim backed up?
β Voice - Does it sound like YOU?
β Flow - Do ideas connect logically?
β Close - Sharp and memorable?
β Fair - Counterarguments included?
β Links - Sources provided for major claims?
π Your Distinctive Moves
What makes YOUR writing unique:
- Skepticism + Intellectual Honesty - Critical but fair
- Specific Examples - Not vague generalizations
- Sharp Observation - Memorable closing insights
- Conversational Expertise - Expert who talks like a human
- Evidence-Driven - Claims backed by data
- Strategic Humor - Funny because it's TRUE
- Question Framework - Rhetorical questions engage readers
- Pattern Recognition - You spot recurring dynamics
Result: Readers trust you because you're skeptical AND fair, expert AND accessible, entertaining AND substantive.
π§ If Claude Isn't Matching...
| Problem | Solution |
|---|---|
| Too dry | Add more rhetorical questions, direct address |
| Too casual | Increase evidence, technical precision |
| Too harsh | Add counterargument section, acknowledgments |
| Too uncertain | Clarify your actual position, lead with strongest evidence |
| Not engaging | More specific examples, sharper observations |
π Files at Your Fingertips
| File | Use For |
|---|---|
| SKILL.md | Complete reference (15,000+ words) |
| README.md | How to use the skill |
| GETTING_STARTED.md | Quick start guide |
| voice-tone-checklists.md | Quality control |
| outline-templates.md | Structure your content |
| opening-lines-reference.md | Inspiration for hooks |
| common-scenarios.md | Example prompts |
π Master Prompts
BEST FOR OUTLINES: "Use critical article writer skill to outline an article claiming [position]. Audience: [who]. Focus on [angle]. Evidence: [your facts]. Structure first, then I'll approve."
BEST FOR FULL ARTICLES: "Write [length] article using critical article writer skill about [topic]. Skeptical take on [claim]. Use [evidence]. Maintain fair but critical tone throughout."
BEST FOR THREADS: "Create [X]-post thread using critical article writer skill. Topic: [what]. Progression: hook β deep dive β close. Include hashtags, maintain voice."
BEST FOR QUICK TAKES: "Generate [X] quick takes using critical article writer skill about [topic]. Each: observation + detail + implication. Include links."
β¨ The Core Promise
This skill ensures that every piece you create:
π― Sounds like you - Not AI, not generic, distinctively YOUR voice
π Is intellectually honest - Skeptical but fair, critical but credible
π Is well-supported - Evidence integrated throughout
π¬ Engages readers - Questions, examples, direct address
π¨ Maintains consistency - Same voice across all pieces
Version: 1.0 Quick Reference
Purpose: Fast lookup guide for voice, structure, and prompting
Created: November 2025
Use this page when you need a quick reminder of your voice or when coaching Claude on tone adjustments.