writing-prose
Skill1 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
House writing floor — human naturalness, anti-slop, coherent opinionated structure without persona cosplay or LLM word-soup. Use when drafting or editing posts, docs, essays, threads, READMEs, or technical explainers that should sound like a sharp human, not generic AI, and no named voice pack is required. Prefer writer-style (default pack: evan) for a named voice. Prefer writing-technical for research/build-log form; writing-docs for pure procedures; style-clarity-grace for turgid syntax; elements-of-style for usage/concision mechanics. Prefer marketing for offer/story/ad frameworks. Prefer writing hub when the writing path is unclear.
4 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- bostonaholic/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- bostonaholic/grokbot-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- mattwynne/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- apoapostolov/humanizertheir own version, first seen Oct 9, 2026
Other versions4 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 4
- apoapostolov/humanizer★ 9same name
- mattwynne/skills★ 6same name
- bostonaholic/skills★ 2same name
- bostonaholic/grokbot-skills★ 1same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository47 other files it gives its agents.
- data-apache-lakehouseSkill
- data-apiSkill
- dataSkill
- data-duckdbSkill
- data-identity-resolutionSkill
- data-pipeline-operationsSkill
- data-pokemon-tcg-foundationsSkill
- data-product-evalSkill
- data-reelsSkill
- data-semantic-qualitySkill
- data-table-lifecycleSkill
- html-designSkill
- ebay-listingSkill
- flutter-pro-ux-reviewSkill
- flutterSkill
- browser-testing-with-devtoolsSkill
- browser-verifySkill
- design-systemSkill
- frontend-designSkill
- mobile-app-echarts-visualSkill
- mobile-blog-chart-visualSkill
- mobile-chart-visualSkill
- mobile-product-uxSkill
- mockup-implementSkill
- product-designSkill
- product-ui-craftSkill
- prototypeSkill
- react-performanceSkill
- ui-exploreSkill
- visual-verifySkill
- web-qualitySkill
- high-retention-insight-reels-instagramSkill
- instagramSkill
- instagram-virality-insightsSkill
- marketing-cashvertisingSkill
- marketing-contagiousSkill
- marketing-going-viralSkill
- marketingSkill
- marketing-offersSkill
- marketing-storybrandSkill
- quality-checkSkill
- elements-of-styleSkill
- style-clarity-graceSkill
- writer-styleSkill
- writing-docsSkill
- writingSkill
- writing-technicalSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 4 edited versions we read keep these.
5
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 39
Before drafting: one sentence thesis or job (“argue X”, “teach how Y works”, “recommend Z because …”).
- Distinctive: line 41
Every section must earn its keep against that spine.
- Distinctive: line 50
If unverified: say so. Confident wrong is worse than plain uncertain.
- Distinctive: line 77
No treadmill: every block must add information
- Distinctive: line 83
Default shorter than the model wants.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 4 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Writing prose — human, opinionated, coherent
Job: Kill default LLM prose. Keep the take sharp and the logic tight.
This is not a celebrity voice pack. For “sound like Evan / Kaue / person X” use writer-style (this install defaults to the evan pack). This skill is the house floor when no persona is loaded.
Lineage: naturalness + deslop + facts-first principles from solanabr/writer-style-skill (MIT, Superteam Brazil / Kaue), adapted for non-persona writing. Full engine: writer-style. Pack credits: ATTRIBUTION.md.
When to load
- “Make this less AI” / “tighter” / “more human”
- Blog, docs, internal essay, changelog, thread without a named voice
- Technical post that must stay correct and readable
- Edit pass after marketing draft still sounds corporate-LLM
Non-negotiables
1. One spine
Before drafting: one sentence thesis or job (“argue X”, “teach how Y works”, “recommend Z because …”).
Every section must earn its keep against that spine. Cut “on the other hand” blocks that never change the recommendation.
Bad LLM opinion: long balanced paragraphs that end in “it depends” with no costed pick.
Good opinion: pick, name the tradeoff, say who should ignore you.
2. Facts first (technical)
Neutral fact-sheet for every number, API, flag, version. Style after freeze. Never invent certainty.
If unverified: say so. Confident wrong is worse than plain uncertain.
3. Naturalness floor (always)
From the writer-style naturalness rules (always-on spirit):
- Uneven rhythm — long calm runs + short punches; punches clump, not metronome
- One human seam per passage — real number from use, named credit, small confession, loose run-on
- Calm ≠ clean — don’t over-tidy; over-smooth is the tell
- One mood per piece — confessional / dry / mentor / builder — don’t sample every register
Seams ≠ catchphrases. Humanity is structure and rhythm, not forced slang.
4. Deslop (subtractive)
Cut clusters of tells (not single innocent words):
- Em-dash decoration piles, “delve / landscape / robust / nuanced / pivotal”
- Fake profundity (“X is the language of trust”) → concrete fact instead
- Restatement loops (“In other words… Essentially… At its core…”)
- Modular paragraphs you could reshuffle with no damage
Preserve: specific hard-to-fake detail, mixed feelings, real asides. Don’t sand those off.
5. Logical coherence
- Each paragraph depends on the last (setup → payoff)
- No treadmill: every block must add information
- Claims have warrants; metaphors don’t replace mechanism
- End with a verdict or next action, not a summary of summaries
6. Length discipline
Default shorter than the model wants. If a section doesn’t change the reader’s action or understanding, delete it.
Workflow
1. Spine sentence + audience + form (post / docs / thread)
2. Fact-sheet if technical (voice OFF)
3. Draft in house prose (spine + seams + unevenness)
4. Reshuffle test + treadmill cut
5. Deslop pass
6. Read aloud; kill press-release linesQuick checklist
- Thesis in one sentence
- Technical facts frozen / sourced
- Uneven sentences; not all 18 words
- ≥1 real seam (specifics, not filler slang)
- No paragraph reshuffle-safe
- Opinion has a costed pick if the piece argues
- No AI-tell cluster
- Shorter than first draft
Anti-patterns (LLM opinionated style)
| Failure | Fix |
| Wordy both-sides theater | Pick + tradeoff in two sentences |
| Even, polished “blog voice” | Flatten body; spike only at seams/verdicts |
| Aphorism without fact | Ground or cut |
| Section headings as decoration | Each section must advance the spine |
| Confidence without source | Verify or hedge honestly |
| Applying Hotz/Vitalik costume | Use writer-style craft layers properly, or stay house prose |
Hand off
| Need | Skill |
| Named author voice (default: Evan) | writer-style |
| Research / empirical / build-log form | writing-technical |
| Runbook / API reference / how-to | writing-docs |
| Turgid / buried actors | style-clarity-grace |
| Usage / punctuation / omit needless words | elements-of-style |
| Offers / StoryBrand / ads | marketing |
| Product UI microcopy | product-design |
| Validate voice markers / tools | writer-style tools (validate_voice.py) |
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

