General prose doctrine for anything a human will read — clear, concrete, free of ready-made phrases. Use when writing or editing documentation, explanations, summaries, commit messages, reports, or any other prose.
68
81%
Does it follow best practices?
Run evals on this skill
Adds up to 20 points to the overall score
View guide
Passed
No findings from the security scan
Orwell, 1946, on bad prose: it "consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse." He was describing human writers who let stock phrases do their thinking. You are that process industrialized. Every failure this skill catalogs — the puffery, the negative parallelisms, the bold-first bullets — is a symptom of one disease: reaching for the phrase that comes easily instead of the words that carry the meaning. Ready-made phrases "will construct your sentences for you — even think your thoughts for you, to a certain extent — and at need they will perform the important service of partially concealing your meaning even from yourself."
The cure is also his: let the meaning choose the word, and not the other way around. Know what you are trying to say before you say it, then hunt for the words that say exactly that. A sentence that arrived fully formed probably came off the shelf. Rewrite it.
Ask of every sentence, in Orwell's words:
And then: Could I put it more shortly? Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly?
Two questions about the reader govern every piece: what do they know, and what did they come for.
What they know. Only what is on the page. A term you coined means nothing until you anchor it. Never lean on context the reader doesn't have — reasoning you did elsewhere, a discussion they weren't in. When clear and short conflict, choose clear.
What they came for. A reader is here either to do something or to understand something. Decide which before writing, and serve that need only. Theory interrupting instructions fails the person trying to act; procedure padding an explanation fails the person trying to think. One piece, one need — separate the rest, don't blend it.
Most work is an incremental improvement, and that is fine. Do not inflate a bug fix into a meditation on the future of software. Do not manufacture drama ("Here's the kicker"), announce that your point is obvious ("The reality is simple"), confess a bias to buy credibility, or attribute claims to unnamed experts. State the point at the size it actually is and let the evidence do the emphasizing. If the thing is important, the facts will show it.
references/tropes.md is the field guide: the specific prefabricated phrases and structures that mark machine writing, with examples and fixes. The worst offenders:
| Category | Offenders |
|---|---|
| Word choice | "delve", "leverage", "robust", "tapestry", "landscape", "serves as", "quietly", "stands as a testament" |
| Sentence structure | "not X — it's Y", "Not A. Not B. Just C.", "The result? Devastating.", tricolon pileups, "-ing" tails ("highlighting its importance") |
| Tone | "Here's the kicker", "Think of it as", "Let's break this down", stakes inflation, invented concept labels |
| Formatting | em-dash pileups, bold-first bullets, emoji decoration, Title Case Headings, arrow chains in prose |
| Composition | fractal summaries, one metaphor beaten across a piece, "In conclusion", "Despite these challenges..." |
Any single trope once might be fine. A cluster is not.
Reread the draft as a reader who knows only what's on the page and came for one thing. Then check:
writing/SKILL.md
516dee7
If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.