write

User request: $ARGUMENTS

Write prose content that reads as authentically human, not AI-generated.

Goal

Gather the writer's context (the 70%) → write content applying human-writing principles → review via writing-reviewer → auto-fix HIGH+ issues → loop until reviewer finds no HIGH+ issues → deliver.

Input Detection

Adapt based on what's provided:

Input	Entry Point
Topic only	Gather context → outline → write → review loop
Topic + outline	Gather context → write from outline → review loop
Rough draft	Gather context for gaps → rewrite applying principles → review loop
Finished text	Skip writing, run review loop only (editing mode)
No input	Ask what to write

Gather Context (The 70%)

Before writing anything, gather the writer's substance. This is the primary quality driver — prompting and editing are the remaining 30%.

Ask via AskUserQuestion:

• What's your take? Key points, thesis, or argument you want to make
• Personal experience? Specific anecdotes, examples, observations to include
• Opinions? What do you believe about this? What's your angle?
• Specifics? Names, numbers, dates, details that ground the piece
• Audience? Who reads this and what should they walk away with?
• Tone? How should this feel? (Conversational, authoritative, provocative, casual)

If the user provides a rough draft, extract their existing substance and ask only about gaps.

Write

Invoke the writing:human-writing skill to apply research-backed writing principles during generation.

Write the content to draft-{topic-slug}.md in the current working directory. Use a slugified version of the topic for the filename.

Incorporate the user's context as the core substance. Apply the principles from human-writing: avoid kill-list vocabulary, vary sentence length and structure, break symmetry, include specificity, take positions, embrace imperfection.

Review Loop

After writing (or receiving finished text for editing):

1. Review: Invoke the writing-reviewer agent on the draft file
2. Auto-fix: Fix all CRITICAL and HIGH severity AUTO_FIXABLE issues
3. Report: Present MEDIUM and LOW issues to the user (informational, not blocking)
4. Present NEEDS_HUMAN_INPUT: Show HIGH+ NEEDS_HUMAN_INPUT issues to user with options; skip if user declines
5. Loop: If fixes were applied, re-review. Continue until reviewer finds no HIGH+ issues.

Convergence guard: If a fix cycle introduces new HIGH+ issues (total HIGH+ count increases instead of decreasing), stop and present the situation to the user rather than continuing to loop.

Constraints

Constraint	Why
Context before content	Never generate prose without the writer's substance first
Converge, don't cap	No arbitrary iteration limit — run until no HIGH+ issues
Convergence guard	Stop if fixes create new problems — don't oscillate
DRY	Delegate principles to human-writing, review to writing-reviewer
File output	Write to draft-{topic-slug}.md in cwd
Atomic	Working draft updated in place; user sees final clean version

Output

Report when done:

• File path
• Review iterations completed
• Issues fixed (auto) vs reported (to user)
• NEEDS_HUMAN_INPUT items presented and their resolution
• Summary of key changes made during review cycles