Establish scope and authority. Apply this skill to text the user will publish or send, at any length, or to an explicitly requested editorial review of their own draft. Identify whether the task permits drafting, editing, or recommendations only. Preserve the audience, purpose, and requested format. Exclude ordinary assistant replies, quoted source text, and prose attributed to someone else. For internal report reviews, apply truth and material-edit checks without imposing public-documentation style.
Establish the evidence and the user's actual position. Never invent personal opinions, experiences, results, preferences, memories, or certainty. Research discoverable public facts when research is in scope. If a missing personal position would materially change the text, ask and pause that part. Otherwise qualify uncertainty or mark a necessary gap conspicuously; do not add placeholders for details that do not affect the artifact's intended use.
Select detail for the reader. When public developer documentation compares options, check the observable difference, practical trade-off, and when to choose each separately. Preserve supported public contracts, shared guarantees (including compatibility), meaningful limitations, and context needed to interpret claims. Include implementation mechanics only when required for correct API use, necessary to distinguish a reader-facing choice, or explicitly requested. In reviews, explicitly recommend removing each irrelevant mechanic and name missing decision information rather than inventing it or asking for more internals. Distinguish behavior from implementation: preserve a supported return to another setting even if its timing is unverified; omit the internal timing term and delay unless their public or decision relevance is established. Verify uncertain contracts or relevance when research is in scope; otherwise flag material gaps rather than silently dropping or inventing behavior. Internal reports and design documents may need implementation and diagnostic detail; retain it for their intended use.
Read the style profile and shape the argument before polishing. Use only the reasoning the artifact needs: a concrete observation, explanation, evidence, relevant limit, and practical consequence. A short reply may need just the actionable point and one supporting fact.
Review once for truth and once for style, including the headline and opening claim. Remove or qualify promotional framing and unsupported certainty. For material-only edits, identify the false claim or specific misreading that would prevent the intended use before changing anything. Optional polish is not a material fix. Add reproducibility details only when a stated claim or action depends on them; an internal report need not become a rerun protocol. Leave an adequate draft unchanged and briefly explain the relevant evidence, mechanism, or qualification that supports that conclusion.
Deliver the authorized result: write the requested text for a drafting task, apply fixes for an editing task, or give concrete recommendations for a review-only task. Drafting in the response does not authorize file edits. Resolve failed checks below within that boundary. If resolution needs an unknown personal position, ask rather than smoothing over the gap.

Finish gate

Finish when the authorized draft, edit, or review:

Preserves the requested purpose, format, and material-edit boundary.
Grounds every personal claim and substantive fact in supplied or verified evidence, honest qualification, or a clearly identified necessary gap.
Meets the reader-detail checks in step 3, retaining supported behavior and guarantees without irrelevant mechanics.
Uses the appropriate register and language, with concrete reasoning, useful caveats, and no promotional filler or repeated conclusion.

grounded-writing

Grounded Writing

Core principle

Procedure