Writing Skill

Iterative critique and improvement of long-form content. Parallel judges evaluate sections against acceptance criteria. User approves all changes.

Architecture

USER: /cyber-writing <content-file> [--vision <file>] [--sources <files...>]
    │
    ▼
PHASE 1: INGEST                           (main session)
    Read content + vision + sources
    Parse into sections (## headings)
    User picks scope (all / specific sections)
    Write /tmp/writing-brief.md
    │
    ▼
PHASE 2: CRITIQUE                          (5 parallel subagents per section)
    ┌──────────┬──────────┬──────────┬──────────┬──────────┐
    │PRACTICAL │  DATA    │ LANGUAGE │SUBSTANCE │COMPLETE- │
    │  JUDGE   │FRESHNESS │  JUDGE   │  JUDGE   │NESS JUDGE│
    │          │  JUDGE   │          │          │          │
    │"Would a  │"Late-2025│"Sharp?   │"Actual   │"What's   │
    │CTO act   │or 2026   │Concise?  │insight   │missing?  │
    │on this?" │data?"    │No fluff?"│or common │What's    │
    │          │          │          │wisdom?"  │excess?"  │
    └────┬─────┴────┬─────┴────┬─────┴────┬─────┴────┬─────┘
         └──────────┴──────────┴──────────┴──────────┘
                               │
                    Each returns findings as task result
    │
    ▼
PHASE 3: SYNTHESIS                         (main session)
    Deduplicate + consolidate judge outputs into:
    ├── PROBLEMS  (what's wrong, with evidence + severity)
    ├── PROPOSALS (specific rewrites / additions / cuts)
    └── MISSING   (gaps that need new content)
    │
    ▼
PHASE 4: PRESENT                           (main session, interactive)
    Per proposal: Accept / Modify / I'll write it / Skip / Iterate
    │
    ├── Accept/Modify → PHASE 5
    ├── I'll write it → wait for user
    ├── Skip → next proposal
    └── Iterate → back to PHASE 2 for this section
    │
    ▼
PHASE 5: APPLY                             (main session)
    Edit file with accepted changes
    │
    ▼
PHASE 6: NEXT SECTION                      (loop)
    Repeat Phase 2-5 for next section in scope
    After all sections → summary of changes

Invocation

Conversational or via command:

/cyber-writing <content-file> [--vision <file>] [--sources <file1> <file2> ...]

Arguments:

• content-file: Path to the content being critiqued (required)
• --vision: Vision/goal document for the project (optional but recommended)
• --sources: Source files the content was built from (optional, for cross-referencing)

Examples:

/cyber-writing ~/path/to/guidebook.md --vision ~/path/to/VISION.md
/cyber-writing ~/path/to/essay.md --sources ~/path/to/research.md ~/path/to/notes.md

If arguments are missing, ask the user for the content file path and whether there's a vision doc.

Phase 1: Ingest

1. Read content file — the document being critiqued
2. Read vision doc (if provided) — the project's goal, audience, acceptance criteria
3. Read source files (if provided) — materials the content was built from
4. Parse sections — split by ## headings. Each ## heading = one section
5. Present section list to user with line counts
6. User picks scope:
   • all — critique every section sequentially
   • Section numbers — e.g., "1.1, 1.3, 2.4"
   • Range — e.g., "Part 2" or "sections 2.1-2.6"

Write Handoff Brief

Write /tmp/writing-brief.md containing:

markdown
1# Writing Critique Brief
2
3## Project
4[1-2 sentences: what this content is, who it's for]
5
6## Vision
7[Summary of vision doc, or "No vision doc provided"]
8
9## Acceptance Criteria
10- Practical: reader can act on this immediately
11- Data: claims use late-2025 or 2026 data with named sources
12- Language: sharp, concise, no marketing fluff, no LLM-isms
13- Substance: genuine insight, not restated common knowledge
14- Complete: important angles covered, nothing excess
15
16## Source Files
17[List of source file paths, or "No source files provided"]
18
19## Full Document TOC
20[Table of contents with section headings and line numbers]

Phase 2: Critique (Parallel Subagents)

For each section in scope, dispatch 5 judge subagents simultaneously via the Task tool.

Judge Dispatch

Each judge:

• subagent_type: general-purpose
• model: sonnet (fast, cheaper, sufficient for critique)
• Prompt: Built from template at prompts/judge.md with role-specific parameters from the dispatch table below
• Context provided in prompt: The section text (inline), the brief contents (inline), path to full document, paths to source files

Dispatch Configuration

Anti-Pattern List (provided to Language Judge)

Instant-fail words/phrases:

• delve, leverage, tapestry, landscape, paradigm, synergy, holistic
• revolutionary, transformative, game-changing, cutting-edge, groundbreaking
• "It's important to note that", "It's worth mentioning"
• "In today's rapidly evolving", "In an era of"
• "This isn't X. It's Y." (hollow inversion pattern)
• "But here's the thing", "Here's the turn"
• "The implications are profound", "The opportunity is clear"
• Moreover, Furthermore, Additionally, Consequently
• "Let's delve into", "Let's explore", "Let's unpack"

Structural anti-patterns:

• Paragraphs longer than 4 sentences
• Vague attribution ("they say", "experts agree", "studies show")
• Dramatic mic-drop endings ("This isn't the future. It's the present.")
• Unnecessary qualifiers ("very", "really", "extremely", "incredibly")

Phase 3: Synthesis

After all 5 judges return for a section:

1. Read all judge outputs
2. Deduplicate — multiple judges flagging the same issue consolidates into one finding with combined evidence
3. Classify each finding:
   • PROBLEM: Something wrong with existing text (with severity: Critical / Important / Minor)
   • PROPOSAL: A specific rewrite, addition, or cut (with the exact new text or description of change)
   • MISSING: A gap that needs new content (with description of what should be added)
4. Rank by severity: Critical first, then Important, then Minor
5. Write synthesis to /tmp/writing-synthesis-{section-id}.md

Synthesis Format

markdown
1## Section [X.X]: [Title]
2
3### Critical
41. **[Problem]** — [Judge(s)]
5   Evidence: [quote from text]
6   Proposal: [specific change]
7
8### Important
91. **[Problem]** — [Judge(s)]
10   Evidence: [quote from text]
11   Proposal: [specific change]
12
13### Minor
141. **[Problem]** — [Judge(s)]
15   Proposal: [specific change]
16
17### Missing
181. **[Gap description]** — [Judge(s)]
19   Suggestion: [what to add and where]

Phase 4: Present to User

Present the synthesis section-by-section. For each finding, offer choices via AskUserQuestion:

For PROBLEMS with PROPOSALS:

PROBLEM: [description with evidence]
PROPOSAL: [specific change]

Options:
1. Accept — apply this edit
2. Modify — "good direction but..." (user refines)
3. I'll write it — user will edit this themselves
4. Skip — leave as-is

For MISSING items:

MISSING: [gap description]
SUGGESTION: [what to add]

Options:
1. Draft it — generate the missing content for my review
2. I'll write it — user will add this themselves
3. Skip — not needed

After all findings for a section:

Options:
1. Move to next section
2. Re-critique this section (after user's manual edits)
3. Done — stop here

Interaction Rules

• Never batch-apply — present one finding at a time for critical/important, batch minor findings
• Show diffs — when proposing changes, show the before/after clearly
• Accept user rewrites — if user provides their own text, use it exactly
• Track changes — maintain a running list of all accepted changes for the session summary

Phase 5: Apply

For accepted changes:

1. Use the Edit tool to apply the change to the content file
2. Confirm the edit was applied
3. Move to next finding

For "Draft it" on missing items:

1. Generate the content in the response
2. Show it to the user for approval
3. If approved, use Edit or Write to insert it at the appropriate location

Phase 6: Loop + Summary

After completing all sections in scope:

markdown
1## Session Summary
2
3**Sections reviewed**: [list]
4**Changes applied**: [count]
5**Items skipped**: [count]
6**Items for user to write**: [count]
7
8### Changes Made
91. Section X.X: [brief description of change]
102. Section X.X: [brief description of change]
11...
12
13### Still Open
141. Section X.X: [user said they'd write this]
152. Section X.X: [gap identified, skipped]

Key Principles

1. Never edit without user approval — propose, never impose
2. Judges are brutally honest — no praise filler, just problems and proposals
3. Every critique has evidence — quote the specific text that's problematic
4. Proposals are concrete — "rewrite X as Y", never "could be improved"
5. Section-by-section — one section fully resolved before moving to next
6. Full context to subagents — each judge gets vision doc, full document TOC, and the section text
7. Model efficiency — judges run on sonnet (fast, sufficient for critique)

Files

Handoff Files

Commands