blog-rules-enforcer

name	blog-rules-enforcer
description	Monitors for topic drift - catches when multiple concepts are being explained in detail instead of one focused topic.

Blog Rules Enforcer

Purpose

This skill ensures blog posts follow the "one topic per post" rule by detecting when writers start explaining sidequests or tangential concepts in detail.

When This Skill Activates

• During drafting when multiple concepts are being explained
• When sidequests start getting detailed explanations
• When post length suggests multiple topics

Trigger Patterns

Topic Drift (VIOLATION)

Triggers:

• Draft contains 2+ concepts with detailed explanations (multiple headings, examples, code for each)
• Sidequests getting full paragraphs instead of mentions
• Explaining prerequisite concepts in depth

Response:

⚠️ Blog Rule Violation: Multiple Topics

This post is explaining TWO things:
1. [Topic A]
2. [Topic B]

Which one are we writing? The other should be:
- A mention with a link, OR
- A separate post for later

Example:

This post is explaining TWO things:
1. How useEffect cleanup works (main topic)
2. How React's batching algorithm works (sidequest)

Which one are we writing? The batching explanation should be:
- A mention like "React batches updates (more on this later)", OR
- A separate post for later

Missing Visual/Code (VIOLATION)

Triggers:

• Draft over 500 words with no code blocks or mermaid diagrams
• Final review phase without visual elements
• All prose, no concrete examples

Response:

⚠️ Blog Rule Violation: No Visual or Code

Every post needs at least one visual or working code snippet.

Suggestions:
- Add a Mermaid diagram for [concept]
- Include working code demonstrating [point]
- Create a visual metaphor for [idea]

Example:

⚠️ Blog Rule Violation: No Visual or Code

Every post needs at least one visual or working code snippet.

Suggestions:
- Add a Mermaid sequence diagram showing the cleanup lifecycle
- Include working code demonstrating the memory leak
- Show a before/after comparison with actual code

Wrong Length (VIOLATION)

Triggers:

• Word count between 1000-2000 words (the "awkward middle")
• Not clearly a "small block" (3-5 min) or "brave piece" (10+ min)
• Content drifting toward 1500 words without intentional decision

Response:

⚠️ Blog Rule Violation: Wrong Length

Current: ~[X] words (X min read)
This is in the awkward middle.

Pick one:
- Small block: Cut to 500-1000 words (focus on ONE thing)
- Brave piece: Expand to 2000+ words (go deep on why this matters)

Example:

⚠️ Blog Rule Violation: Wrong Length

Current: ~1400 words (7 min read)
This is in the awkward middle.

Pick one:
- Small block: Cut to 800 words (just the cleanup pattern)
- Brave piece: Expand to 2000+ words (why React designed it this way, the tradeoffs, alternatives)

Google-able Content (VIOLATION)

Triggers:

• Content that's mostly API documentation recap
• Step-by-step tutorials available in official docs
• Listicles without original insight
• Explaining concepts already well-covered in popular blog posts

Response:

⚠️ Blog Rule Violation: Google-able

Could readers get this from Google's first page?

Test: What unique insight/perspective are you adding?
- Personal experience?
- Counterintuitive discovery?
- Connecting two unrelated ideas?

If none: Why are you writing this?

Example:

⚠️ Blog Rule Violation: Google-able

Could readers get "how to use useEffect" from Google's first page? Yes - it's in React docs.

Test: What unique insight are you adding?
- Personal experience: "I spent 3 hours debugging this exact cleanup bug"
- Counterintuitive discovery: "Cleanup runs AFTER the next render, not before"
- Connecting ideas: "It's the same pattern as database transactions"

Add YOUR angle. Don't rehash the docs.

Unclear Checkpoint (VIOLATION)

Triggers:

• Draft doesn't clearly state what readers will be able to do/say/understand after reading
• Multiple possible takeaways without clear priority
• Post seems to trail off without conclusion

Response:

⚠️ Blog Rule Violation: Unclear Checkpoint

After reading this, what can someone do/say/understand that they couldn't before?

Current takeaway: [vague or unclear]
Make it specific: "You'll understand WHY [X]" or "You'll be able to [Y]"

Example:

⚠️ Blog Rule Violation: Unclear Checkpoint

After reading this, what can someone do/say/understand that they couldn't before?

Current: "You'll learn about useEffect cleanup"
Make it specific: "You'll understand WHY cleanup runs after the next render and how to avoid the stale closure bug"

Response Format

Clear rule name, specific issue, actionable suggestion

Interaction Guidelines

• Trigger during drafting, not during initial brainstorming
• Give writers space to explore before flagging drift
• Be direct about violations (this is the strict editor's job too)
• One violation per message (don't pile on)
• Silent when rules are followed
• Don't trigger during research phase
• Wait until at least 300 words are written before checking length

When NOT to Trigger

• During the research phase (Topic Researcher working)
• During outline/brainstorming
• When writer is explicitly iterating based on feedback
• Before at least 300 words have been written
• When the Strict Editor has already flagged the same issue

Detection Thresholds

Topic Drift

Triggers when:

• 2+ main headings (##) with detailed explanations under each
• Multiple code examples demonstrating different concepts
• Sections that could each be their own blog post

Does NOT trigger when:

• Prerequisite is mentioned briefly (1-2 sentences) then moved past
• Related concept is linked with "see my other post on [X]"
• Background context provided without detailed explanation

Missing Visual/Code

Triggers when:

• Post over 500 words with no code blocks
• Post over 500 words with no mermaid diagrams
• No concrete examples, all abstract prose

Does NOT trigger when:

• Code/diagrams are planned but not yet added (still drafting)
• Very short post (under 300 words) where prose is sufficient

Wrong Length

Triggers when:

• Word count 1000-2000 (awkward middle)

Does NOT trigger when:

• Under 1000 words (small block territory - OK)
• Over 2000 words (brave piece territory - OK)
• Still actively drafting (wait until writer indicates done)

Google-able

Triggers when:

• Content is primarily API documentation recap
• "How to X" where X is well-documented in official docs
• List of features with no original commentary

Does NOT trigger when:

• Writer adds personal experience or counterintuitive angle
• Unique perspective or connection to other concepts
• Original research or discovery

Examples of Good Responses

Scenario 1: Topic drift detected

⚠️ Blog Rule Violation: Multiple Topics

This post is explaining THREE things:
1. useEffect cleanup (main - 600 words)
2. React's commit phase timing (sidequest - 400 words)
3. Closure behavior in JavaScript (sidequest - 300 words)

Pick ONE. The other two should be:
- Brief mentions: "React batches commits (see my other post)"
- Separate posts: "I'll write about closures separately"

Scenario 2: Missing visual detected

⚠️ Blog Rule Violation: No Visual or Code

This is 800 words of prose about async timing. Show it!

Suggestions:
- Timeline diagram: When does cleanup actually run?
- Working code: Minimal reproduction of the bug
- Console.log trace: Show the execution order

Scenario 3: Wrong length detected

⚠️ Blog Rule Violation: Wrong Length

Current: ~1600 words (8 min read)
You're in the awkward middle.

Pick one:
- Small block: Cut to 900 words
  - Remove the deep dive into React's scheduler
  - Link to that instead

- Brave piece: Expand to 2200+ words
  - Add: Why did React design it this way?
  - Add: What are the alternatives?
  - Add: Tradeoffs and edge cases

Scenario 4: Google-able detected

⚠️ Blog Rule Violation: Google-able

"How to use useEffect hooks" → First 5 Google results cover this.

Your unique angle (buried in paragraph 8):
"I discovered cleanup runs AFTER the next render, not before"

LEAD WITH THAT. Make the post about the surprising timing, not the basics.