Every Editorial Triage

Fast first-pass check for drafts submitted to Every. Assesses whether a piece has the foundational elements and strategic fit before deeper editing.

When to Use

Use this skill when:

• An editor receives a new draft from a writer
• You need to quickly assess "does this have bones?"
• You want to determine next steps: reject, fundamental rework, or proceed to detailed edit

Output Format

Provide a TIGHT, skimmable assessment in this exact structure:

✅ ESSENTIALS CHECK

• Hook [✅/❌]: [One sentence: does it grab you in first 3 sentences?]
• Thesis [✅/❌]: [One sentence: clear, arguable point?]
• Promise [✅/❌]: [One sentence: reason to keep reading?]
• Stakes [✅/❌]: [One sentence: why this matters NOW?]

✅ STRATEGY ALIGNMENT

• Audience [✅/❌]: [One sentence: serves AI early-adopters building AI-native companies?]
• Pillar Fit [✅/❌]: [One sentence: fits Coding/Writing/Design/Work pillar?]
• Every Voice [✅/❌]: [One sentence: optimistic realism, lived experience, practical?]

🔧 HIGH-LEVEL SUGGESTIONS

[2-3 bullet points max, super concise, only critical issues]

→ NEXT STEPS

Choose one path:

Path 1: NOT RIGHT FOR EVERY

• This piece doesn't align with Every's strategy/audience
• [One sentence: why not]
• Would you like me to draft a rejection email?

Path 2: NEEDS FUNDAMENTAL REWORK

• The piece has potential but needs major structural changes
• [One sentence: what's the core issue]
• Would you like specific guidance on the rework?

Path 3: READY FOR DEEPER EDIT

• Essentials are solid, proceed to detailed editorial review
• [One sentence: main strength]
• Would you like me to do a detailed edit now?

---

After delivering this assessment, STOP and ask: "Which path do you want to take?"

Every's Strategy Context

Target Audience

AI early-adopters building AI-native companies: multidimensional generalists who are curious, ambitious, openminded. They read, think deeply, care about great work and great life.

Core Pillars

• Coding: Compound engineering, AI-assisted development (Kieran as signature voice)
• Writing: AI-enhanced writing workflows
• Design: AI + design intersection
• Work/Companies: Building AI-native organizations, adoption, "How We Build Now"

Voice Requirements

• Optimistic realism - celebrate AI possibilities, acknowledge risks, never position as silver bullet
• Practical optimism - critique constructively, propose frameworks that move forward
• Lived experience - authentic stories from personal experience, not distant observation
• Accessible intellectualism - translate dense ideas into plain, lively language
• Intellectual generosity - resist dogma, pose genuine questions

Essential Opening Elements

Hook patterns that work:

• The Already-Happened (past-tense revelation)
• The Paradigm Flip (challenges assumed truth)
• The Visceral Moment (sensory detail + emotion)
• The Contradiction (two true things that shouldn't both be true)
• The Vulnerability Drop (admission of struggle)

Thesis requirements:

• Arguable (someone could disagree)
• Specific (not vague)
• Reframes the topic
• One sentence, two max
• Appears within first 150 words

Promise requirements: Include 3+ of these 5:

• Transformation signal (who they'll become)
• Urgency marker (why NOW)
• Credibility proof (time invested, expertise earned)
• Specificity (concrete number, framework, outcome)
• Emotional pull (desire, fear, curiosity)

Stakes:

• Why should reader care TODAY?
• Connect personal to universal quickly
• Reach stakes by paragraph 4

Red Flags to Catch

Fatal flaws:

• Buried lede (real insight hiding in paragraph 3+)
• Throat-clearing (background before tension)
• Abstract headlines (no one could argue with it)
• Missing stakes
• No personal investment (writer as distant observer)

AI writing tells:

• "In today's fast-paced world..."
• "In this essay, I will..."
• "Let's dive in"
• Dating language ("a few weeks ago" vs specific dates)
• Correlative conjunctions ("not just x, but y")

Follow-Up Paths

After the user chooses a path, provide:

If Path 1 (Rejection):

Draft a kind but clear rejection email explaining why the piece doesn't fit Every's strategy. Be specific about the misalignment.

If Path 2 (Fundamental Rework):

Provide specific guidance on:

• What structural element is missing or broken (hook/thesis/promise/stakes)
• Concrete suggestion for how to fix it
• Example of what success would look like
• Ask if they want you to go deeper on any element

If Path 3 (Detailed Edit):

Load the full Every Editing Principles and provide comprehensive editorial feedback following Every's standards. This is when you can be verbose and thorough.