creative-writing
Skill0 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Draft, structure, or edit narrative nonfiction with strong questions, scenes, characters, reveals, and endings. Use when user asks for a blog post, article, profile, essay, narrative report, story-driven rewrite, title options, or stronger nonfiction storytelling.
4 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- nisarth/claude-skills-storetheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- fabioc-aloha/Alex_ACT_Editiontheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- Rylaispirit/rylai-codex-hermes-skillstheir own version, first seen Aug 13, 2026
- fabioc-aloha/alex-cognitive-architecturetheir own version, first seen Apr 26, 2026
Other versions4 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 4
- Rylaispirit/rylai-codex-hermes-skills★ 56same name
- nisarth/claude-skills-store★ 1same name
- fabioc-aloha/Alex_ACT_Edition★ 0same name
- fabioc-aloha/alex-cognitive-architecture★ 0same 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 repository16 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- clear-explanationSkill
- dataset-triageSkill
- excalidraw-system-sketchSkill
- figma-to-uiSkill
- frontend-designSkill
- mermaid-architecture-mapSkill
- newsletter-growthSkill
- no-ai-slopSkill
- outreach-emailSkill
- presentation-builderSkill
- resume-helperSkill
- skill-authoringSkill
- stanford-researchSkill
- technical-writingSkill
- verification-loopSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
9 rules. 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 4 edited versions we read keep these.
8
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 7
Write narrative nonfiction from verified material.
- Very specific: line 11
Use for articles, profiles, essays, blogs, and narrative reports.
- Distinctive: line 26
Write one central question.
- Distinctive: line 35
Avoid more than two argument-heavy sections without concrete relief.
- Distinctive: line 43
Use suspense when reader knows answer is coming.
- Distinctive: line 56
Delete sections that do not serve central question.
- Distinctive: line 58
Verify each factual statement against source material.
- Distinctive: line 72
Every scene and quote sourced.
- Distinctive: line 81
Use direct simple sentences.
“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
Write narrative nonfiction from verified material. Build reader movement, not ornamental prose.
Scope
Use for articles, profiles, essays, blogs, and narrative reports. Use no-ai-slop for AI-pattern detection or human-voice polish when narrative structure is not main job. Do not use for fiction, product microcopy, straight technical docs, or research synthesis unless user asks for narrative treatment.
Inputs
- Topic or draft.
- Audience, venue, length, and voice.
- Notes, interviews, quotes, data, and sources.
- Required claims, exclusions, and call to action.
User owns facts and voice. Never invent quotes, scenes, motives, credentials, or data. Mark missing evidence with clear placeholders.
Workflow
Step 1: Pin Question And Ending
Write one central question. Name what stays unresolved. Choose ending image, fact, decision, or insight before drafting. If ending only repeats thesis, find stronger destination.
Step 2: Map Sections
Give each section one job. Alternate:
- Argument: claim, evidence, analysis.
- Story: scene, person, vivid fact, useful detour.
Avoid more than two argument-heavy sections without concrete relief. Short piece may use simple hook, claim, evidence, close.
Step 3: Build People Through Evidence
Show character through action, setting, dialogue, constraint, and choice. Pick two or three details that affect story. Remove decorative description.
Step 4: Control Reveals
Use suspense when reader knows answer is coming. Use surprise when new fact changes frame. Withhold only when delayed fact improves meaning without misleading reader.
Step 5: Translate Complexity
Explain jargon once. Break data into small units. Use analogy only when mapping is accurate and clarifies mechanism. For long pieces, test one analogous world; drop it if it adds detour without insight.
Step 6: Match Voice And Emotion
Match source voice, audience, and stakes. Use simple language for complex ideas. Let quotes and observed detail carry emotion. Avoid announcing humor, overstating sadness, or manufacturing certainty.
Step 7: Tighten And Title
- Cut repeated claims and throat-clearing.
- Delete sections that do not serve central question.
- Fix sentence rhythm by reading aloud.
- Verify each factual statement against source material.
- Confirm ending changes reader position.
- Draft at least three specific title options.
Fallbacks
- Thin evidence: produce outline or questions, not invented draft.
- Short format: skip characters and analogous world unless essential.
- Institutional stakes: favor clarity, attribution, and restraint over suspense.
Verify
- Central question clear.
- Structure moves toward ending.
- Every scene and quote sourced.
- Claims traceable.
- Jargon decoded.
- Voice fits audience.
- Title names real tension or value.
- Draft reads naturally aloud.
Writing
Use direct simple sentences. Skip rhetorical flourishes. Avoid X-not-Y contrasts, self-answering rhetorical questions, em dashes, alliterative three-part phrases, vague inspirational pivots, unsourced claims, and unverified quotes.
Output
Return requested draft or edit. Include title options. State placeholders, assumptions, and source gaps.
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.

