agentleFS
Sign inStart free
imMamdouhaboammarimMamdouhaboammar/matts-skills-into-chatgpt/skills/writing-beats/SKILL.md

writing-beats

Skill8 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub

Develop long-form writing through an interactive progression of narrative and argumentative beats. Use when drafting essays, articles, documentation, or blog posts where structure evolves beat by beat — even if the user says \"write this post with me\". Do NOT use for quick single-sentence copy edits.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 66 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 4

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    No Batch Writing Ahead: Never jump ahead to write unapproved beats.

    line 16
  2. Distinctive:

    Preserve Author Revisions: Always re-read the draft file from disk before generating next candidates to incorporate user edits seamlessly.

    line 17
  3. Distinctive:

    Action: Write the user-selected beat to the draft file and re-read the entire draft before computing the next step.

    line 61
  4. Distinctive:

    Key Point: If the user asks to backtrack or rewrite an earlier beat, edit it in place and re-compute available branches.

    line 62

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 66 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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Writing Beats

Drive an interactive, choose-your-own-adventure drafting loop where each beat introduces a focused narrative move, respects grounded prerequisites, and unlocks reachable subsequent pathways.

Core Invariants

  1. One Beat per Turn: Propose 2–3 candidate next moves, preview what each unlocks, and write strictly ONE chosen beat per turn to disk.
  2. Dynamic Reachability & Grounding: A candidate beat is only reachable if all required concepts are already grounded (either as baseline prerequisites or introduced by previous beats).
  3. No Batch Writing Ahead: Never jump ahead to write unapproved beats; each beat must establish state before subsequent branches are computed.
  4. Preserve Author Revisions: Always re-read the draft file from disk before generating next candidates to incorporate user edits seamlessly.
  5. Complete Journey Over Empty Pile: The essay concludes when the narrative journey is complete, not when every raw fragment in the pile is exhausted.

Architecture & Map of Content (MOC)

[ Raw Fragment Pile ] ──► [ Settle Grounded Prerequisites ] ──► [ Present 2-3 Candidate Beats ]
                                                                             │
                                           ┌─────────────────────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────┐
                                           ▼                                                                   ▼
                                  [ Candidate Beat A ]                                                [ Candidate Beat B ]
                                  - Requires: Grounded X, Y                                           - Requires: Grounded X
                                  - Grounds: New Concept Z                                            - Grounds: New Concept W
                                  - Unlocks: Path Alpha                                               - Unlocks: Path Beta
                                           │
                                           ▼
                               [ User Chooses Beat A ] ──► [ Append Beat A to Disk ] ──► [ Compute Next 2-3 Candidates ]
Beat ScaleStructureNarrative Function
Micro Beat1 punchy sentenceScene transition or timing pause
Standard Beat1 tight paragraphSetup + punchline or claim + rationale
Macro Beat2–3 paragraphsSelf-contained vignette or code walkthrough

Step-by-Step Procedure (TWI)

Step 1: Initialize Grounding Matrix & Prerequisites

  • Action: Ingest the raw pile and agree with the user on what concepts the audience knows walking in.
  • Key Point: Track the active list of grounded concepts in session memory.
  • Why: Ensures every candidate branch is conceptually accessible to the reader.

Step 2: Formulate Candidate Next Beats

  • Action: Offer 2–3 candidate beats drawn from the pile, explicitly stating: (1) what concepts it requires, (2) what new concept it grounds, (3) what directions it unlocks.
  • Inline Checklist:
    • All candidates reachable from currently grounded set
    • Each candidate represents a distinct narrative branch
    • Unlocked paths previewed for the user

Step 3: Append Chosen Beat & Re-Read Disk

  • Action: Write the user-selected beat to the draft file and re-read the entire draft before computing the next step.
  • Key Point: If the user asks to backtrack or rewrite an earlier beat, edit it in place and re-compute available branches.
  • Why: Gives the author complete interactive agency over article pacing and narrative tone.

Anti-Rationalization Guardrails

Tempting RationalizationBinding RuleEngineering Rationale
"Write 3 beats at once to speed up drafting."Write exactly 1 beat per turn.Batching beats removes the author's ability to steer branch direction.
"Force every leftover raw fragment into the draft."Conclude when the journey is complete; leave excess in the pile.Forcing unused fragments into the draft dilutes clarity and clutters the narrative.
"Offer candidate beats that require ungrounded concepts."Enforce prerequisite reachability on all candidates.Leaping into ungrounded concepts confuses readers and breaks argument continuity.

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.

Check your setup, free