{"slug": "substance-first-writing-review-skill-for-clear-respectful-non-ai-prose", "title": "Substance-first writing review skill for clear, respectful, non-AI prose", "summary": "A developer has published a substance-first writing review skill designed to produce clear, respectful, non-AI prose. The skill prioritizes concrete evidence, real scenes, and clear judgments over rhetorical packaging, requiring each section to earn the reader's attention through content alone. It also mandates critiquing mechanisms rather than people, avoiding AI tone and mystification to keep the author's reasoning path visible.", "body_md": "| name | substance-writing-review |\n|---|---|\n| description | Use when reviewing, rewriting, or quality-checking essays, articles, scripts, posts, or long-form drafts for substance-first writing in the spirit of On Writing Well: clear ideas, concrete evidence, reader respect, no AI tone, no mystification, and no empty rhetorical packaging. |\n\nUse this skill to check or revise writing so the piece earns attention through content, not packaging.\n\nThe writing should persuade through substance: concrete evidence, real scenes, clear judgments, disruptive ideas that genuinely exist in the source, precise insights, and reasoning the reader can follow. The reader does not owe us attention; every section must make the next section worth reading.\n\n-\n**Clarity before polish**- Each section should answer: what is being said, why it matters, and where the judgment comes from.\n- Delete lines that create mood or cleverness without increasing understanding.\n\n-\n**Substance drives the piece**- Substance includes facts, scenes, people, choices, consequences, disruptive ideas, and clearly stated insights.\n- Do not force disruption for its own sake. If the source contains a surprising or frame-shifting idea, let it surface naturally and explain why it is true.\n- Replace unsupported abstractions with the path that produced the claim: evidence, example, comparison, reasoning, or implication.\n\n-\n**Open directly**- State the core problem and core judgment early.\n- Do not stall with floating aphorisms, repeated hooks, or empty atmosphere.\n\n-\n**No invented inner life**- Do not add thoughts, feelings, or motives the speaker did not express.\n- Natural first-person reasoning is fine when it follows the source.\n\n-\n**Structure helps comprehension**- Use sections and frameworks only when they clarify the content.\n- Avoid invented labels such as\n`XX法则`\n\n,`XX障碍`\n\n,`XX困境`\n\n,`XX之墙`\n\n, or`XX模型`\n\nunless the source itself uses them.\n\n-\n**Respect the reader**- Do not talk down to the reader or shame them.\n- When discussing a gap in cognition or action, use empathy and admit the speaker can share the same problem.\n\n-\n**Critique mechanisms, not people**- When a draft describes someone missing advice or failing to act, avoid landing the sentence on\n`they do not understand`\n\nor`they cannot receive it`\n\n. - Move the critique up one level: the advice gets thrown away, this kind of advice is easy to miss, the evaluation standard fails, the structure makes the advice hard to process.\n- This keeps the authorial stance broad and fair rather than invested in being right about a specific person.\n\n- When a draft describes someone missing advice or failing to act, avoid landing the sentence on\n-\n**Avoid AI tone**- Avoid hard template turns such as\n`不是……而是……`\n\n. - Avoid excessive parallelism, list padding, and rhetorical over-ordering.\n\n- Avoid hard template turns such as\n-\n**No mystification**- Do not use importance as fog. Use concrete stakes and time horizons.\n- Avoid inflated or mystical phrasing when a plain consequence would be clearer.\n\n-\n**Keep the source of judgment visible**\n\n- Preserve stories and the reasoning path.\n- For every major claim, ask whether the draft shows why the author thinks this.\n\nWhen reviewing, lead with the highest-impact issues and quote only short excerpts. When rewriting, keep the author's substance and voice while making the draft clearer, more concrete, and more respectful.", "url": "https://wpnews.pro/news/substance-first-writing-review-skill-for-clear-respectful-non-ai-prose", "canonical_source": "https://gist.github.com/shirley-yp/876a31e551bc75f3139695e508f26c9d", "published_at": "2026-05-30 17:38:12+00:00", "updated_at": "2026-05-30 17:43:31.841647+00:00", "lang": "en", "topics": ["ai-tools", "natural-language-processing", "generative-ai", "ai-ethics", "ai-research"], "entities": ["On Writing Well"], "alternates": {"html": "https://wpnews.pro/news/substance-first-writing-review-skill-for-clear-respectful-non-ai-prose", "markdown": "https://wpnews.pro/news/substance-first-writing-review-skill-for-clear-respectful-non-ai-prose.md", "text": "https://wpnews.pro/news/substance-first-writing-review-skill-for-clear-respectful-non-ai-prose.txt", "jsonld": "https://wpnews.pro/news/substance-first-writing-review-skill-for-clear-respectful-non-ai-prose.jsonld"}}