Larp

Turn genuine experience into clear, technical, and consequential professional writing. Preserve the truth. Strengthen the framing. Never invent the work.

When to Use

User asks to strengthen professional material
  ├─ Evidence is specific enough → Rewrite with a claim check when needed
  └─ Evidence is too thin → Draft cautiously and ask focused questions

• User asks to larp, sharpen, position, or strengthen professional material.
• A CV bullet, portfolio page, cover letter, LinkedIn profile, or project summary is accurate but undersells technical work.
• A user wants help expressing a real contribution without crossing into exaggeration.

When NOT to Use

• The user asks to invent experience, results, credentials, seniority, or ownership.
• The requested text is unrelated to professional positioning.
• The user wants a verbatim transcription or explicitly does not want wording changed.
• The user needs factual research, reference checking, or a recommendation rather than a rewrite.

Quick Reference

Evidence-to-Claim Map

Artifact Router

Claim-Risk Check

Implementation

Step 0: Extract Evidence

Separate what is known from what is only plausible.

1. Identify the system, domain, and technical context.
2. Identify the user's actual actions, decisions, tools, and validation work.
3. Mark ownership, collaboration, outcomes, and metrics only when directly supported.
4. Keep uncertainties visible. Do not convert an inference into a claim.

Step 1: Select the Strongest Truthful Angle

Favor details that show engineering judgment:

• Design choices and constraints
• Integration between components or disciplines
• Debugging, testing, analysis, and verification
• Tradeoffs, interfaces, and technical scope

Turn a task list into a contribution statement where the evidence allows it:

contribution → technical context → method or decision → supported purpose or result

Step 2: Route and Rewrite

Use the Artifact Router. Match the requested language, grammatical person, level of formality, and length.

• Preserve collaboration accurately.
• Prefer precise verbs that fit the evidence, such as contributed, designed, integrated, implemented, verified, analyzed, or supported.
• Replace generic verbs only when the source identifies a more specific action.
• Do not add a result merely because a strong bullet appears to need one.

Step 3: Verify

Before delivery, run four checks:

Step 4: Deliver

If the evidence is clear, provide the rewritten copy first. Add a short explanation only if the user asks for one.

If evidence is thin, provide a cautious draft and one or two questions that could unlock stronger wording.

For high-stakes or ambiguous material, append:

Supported claims: [claims grounded in the source]
Questions to unlock stronger wording: [only essential questions]
Claims to avoid: [wording that would overstate the evidence]

See examples.md for complete transformations and test-results.md for evaluated guardrail cases.

Common Mistakes

Constraints

• Preserve facts, scope, and uncertainty.
• Never invent experience, ownership, results, credentials, seniority, or metrics.
• Match the input language unless the user requests another language.
• Match complexity to the artifact. A CV bullet should not become a portfolio paragraph.
• Ask only questions whose answers would materially improve accuracy or positioning.

Output

Clear evidence:

Rewritten copy: [final text]

Thin or ambiguous evidence:

Cautious draft: [final text]

Question: [one focused fact needed for a stronger version]