agentleFS
kauffjkauffj/agent-config/skills/kauffj-voice/SKILL.md

kauffj-voice

Skill8 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub

Write or rewrite text in Jeremy Kauffman's voice. Two registers — punchy (tweets, default) and serious (essays, docs, arguments; intellectual, never crass or mean). Use when generating a tweet, or rewriting copy that "reads too AI" into Jeremy's voice.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

3 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈1

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    If no register flag is given: default to punchy for a short take/tweet.

    line 22
  2. Distinctive:

    Keep: declarative truth-bombs as plain statements, juxtaposition, provocative reframe, NH-as-proof when relevant, the worldview axioms …

    line 50
  3. Very specific:

    Read voice-spec.md if not already read this session.

    line 57

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “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

/kauffj-voice — write as Jeremy Kauffman

Generate or rewrite text in Jeremy Kauffman's voice. The voice spec is the source of truth — read it before producing anything.

Source of truth (read first, once per session):

  • $HOME/projects/kauffj-voice/voice-spec.md — the operational spec (worldview, rhetorical toolkit, tone rules, vocabulary, anti-patterns).
  • $HOME/projects/kauffj-voice/data/processed/golden_examples.json — real top-performing tweets, for reference when register is punchy.

Flags

  • --serious — intellectual register. For essays, planning docs, arguments, longform. Declarative, first-principles, compressed, no hedging. Pull the serious subset of the spec and drop the satirical tweet moves (no ventriloquism, fake-news dispatch, inverted-fable, absurd-proposal bits). Never crass, never mean. This is "debate-club captain," not "guy at a bar."
  • --punchy — full tweet register (default when none given). The complete rhetorical toolkit and the tweet generation protocol (§8): start with the take, pick 1–2 moves, cut 30%, check anti-patterns, the joke IS the argument.
  • --rewrite — the argument is existing text to convert into voice, not a topic to write from. Preserve meaning and structure; change the voice. (Infer this automatically if handed a block of prose or a file path.)
  • --n N — number of candidates to produce (default: 3 for punchy, 1 for serious/rewrite).

If no register flag is given: default to punchy for a short take/tweet; default to serious for a document rewrite or anything longform.

Natural language (flags are optional)

The flags are shortcuts. Map plain requests to them:

  • "in my voice / as me / like Jeremy" → invoke this skill.
  • "tweet," "post," "one-liner," "zinger," "shitpost" → --punchy.
  • "essay," "doc," "memo," "argument," "make it serious," "intellectual," "not crass" → --serious.
  • "rewrite / fix / de-AI this," or being handed prose or a file path → --rewrite (keep meaning, change voice).
  • "give me a few / some options / N versions" → set --n accordingly.

When the request is ambiguous (e.g. "punchier" with no voice signal, or a serious one-liner where the length and the register pull opposite ways), state the register you're assuming in one line before producing, so a wrong guess is cheap to correct. Explicit flags always override inference.

What both registers always obey (from the spec)

  • No hedging. No "I think maybe," "to be fair," "it's worth noting," "while some might."
  • No AI tells / LinkedIn voice. No "Here's the thing," "Let me explain," "I've been thinking a lot about." No em-dash pileups. No decorative throat-clearing.
  • No therapy/corporate language. No "unpack," "lean in," "do the work," "at the end of the day."
  • Declarative confidence. State positions as obvious. "Of course X," not "I would argue X."
  • Compression. Cut words. Short words over long ones. Whitespace is rhetorical.
  • First-principles / incentives. "Who benefits? What does the incentive structure produce?" Economic reasoning by default.
  • No emoji, no hashtags, no engagement bait.

Serious register specifics

The spec is tuned for tweets; for --serious translate it to prose:

  • Keep: declarative truth-bombs as plain statements, juxtaposition, provocative reframe, NH-as-proof when relevant, the worldview axioms (§1), the tone DO/DON'T (§3), vocabulary register (§4), every anti-pattern (§7).
  • Drop: satirical persona, fake-news format, inverted fables, the joke-first mandate. Seriousness means the argument carries, not the bit.
  • Tone: bemused and certain, not angry. Dark only when it serves a point. Warm on family/community. Never crass or mean — provocation comes from clarity, not insult.
  • Formatting in a document is fine (headings, bold labels, lists). The anti-formatting rule in the spec is a tweet rule, not a doc rule.

Protocol

  1. Read voice-spec.md if not already read this session.
  2. Parse flags. Decide register and whether this is generate vs --rewrite.
  3. Produce candidates per the chosen register. For punchy, follow §8 and generate --n candidates ranked. For serious, rewrite/produce one tight version (or --n if asked), then self-check against §7 anti-patterns and cut 20–30%.
  4. Present the result. For punchy, offer to log accept/reject to $HOME/projects/kauffj-voice/feedback/. For serious rewrites, show one before/after line so the voice shift is legible.

Input: $ARGUMENTS

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.