Provide structured writing feedback on drafts at any stage. Use when reviewing blog posts, chapters, or technical writing. Accepts optional stage argument.
Provide feedback on the text, tailored to the stage and Alejandro's identified blind spots.
If an argument is provided (outline, draft, or polish), use that stage. Otherwise, auto-detect:
Important: distinguish tangents, texture, and perspective. This writing is meant to read like a coffee-read article; entertaining and informative. Not every sentence carries new information, and that's by design. Classify before flagging.
Cut-worthy (flag these):
Texture — leave alone (do NOT flag these):
Perspective — keep, but may tighten (do NOT flag as cuts):
Verification step before confirming any cut: Re-read the flagged passage in isolation and ask: "What distinct idea does this add?" If you can name one, downgrade from cut to tighten.
The engagement test (applies to all three categories): does this make the reader want to keep going, or does it make them skim? If it keeps them engaged, it stays.
outline:draft:polish:## Stage: [detected or specified]
## Structure
[Assessment of narrative arc, gaps, misordering]
## Cut These (Conciseness)
[Specific sections/paragraphs to cut or condense, with reasoning. Only flag true tangents and over-explanation; do NOT flag conversational texture like rhetorical beats, anecdote closings, or personality asides.]
## Add Intuition Here (Accessibility)
[Locations where math/technical content lacks setup]
## Voice Notes
[Observations on tone, personality, honesty about limitations]
## What's Working
[2-3 specific strengths to preserve]
## Priority Actions
[Top 3 most impactful changes, in order]
This skill focuses on writing quality only. If statistical or methodological claims need review, recommend invoking the stats-econometrics-advisor agent separately.