| name | winning-writing-critic |
| description | Grades any draft against the full Winning Writing rubric (Kramon + Konrad + Kingsbury) and rewrites it. The orchestrator skill — invoke when you don't know which specialized skill applies, when the user just says "review this" or "make this better," or when the draft spans multiple forms (e.g., a pitch email that's also kind of an op-ed). Triggers on "review," "critique," "feedback," "make this better," "is this good," "grade this." |
Winning Writing critic
Source: every file in points/. This skill is the orchestrator — it pulls from all of them.
What it does
Given any draft, score it against the full Winning Writing rubric, then rewrite it. The output is two things: a numbered critique and a clean rewrite.
The rubric
Score each dimension 0–10. Anything below 7 needs work.
1. Main point (0–10)
- Is there a single clear main point?
- Is it in the first sentence?
- Could the reader summarize it in 6 words?
2. Audience (0–10)
- Does the writer know who's reading this?
- Is it written for them, not at them?
- Would the reader feel "one in a million" or "one of a million"?
3. BLUF (0–10)
- Is the conclusion up front?
- Or is there organ music — buildup, throat-clearing, qualification?
4. Length (0–10)
- Is this as short as it can be without losing substance?
- Cold email under 200 words? Op-ed under 800?
5. Story vs. resume (0–10)
- Is there a specific scene with date, place, sensory detail?
- Or is it a list of accomplishments?
6. "Like you" / connection (0–10)
- Is there a specific, genuine bridge between writer and reader?
- Not generic ("we both believe in AI")
- Not self-diminishing ("but at a smaller scale")
7. Why-you / why-now (0–10)
- What makes this writer uniquely qualified to say this?
- Why is this timely?
8. The ask or offer (0–10)
- Is the ask small and specific?
- Is there an offer, or is the writer only taking?
- Door open for no?
9. Tone (0–10)
- Conversational, warm, human?
- Confident but humble?
- On their toes, not on their heels?
- Says what they like AND would like — not only what they don't?
10. Jargon (0–10, deducting)
- Banned words present? (See banned-jargon.md)
- AI tells? ("It's not just X — it's Y," "delve," "tapestry")
- Wordy phrases?
11. Specifics (0–10)
- Real names, real numbers, real interviews?
- Or vague abstractions?
12. Sentence rhythm (0–10)
- Vary in length?
- Read aloud — does it have music?
13. Front-page test (pass/fail)
- Would the writer be okay with this on the front page of the NYT?
Output format
## Score
Main point: 8/10
Audience: 6/10 ← needs work
BLUF: 4/10 ← needs work
Length: 9/10
Story vs. resume: 5/10 ← needs work
[etc.]
Total: 78/130
## Critique (in order of priority)
1. [The biggest problem, with the specific line that fails and why]
2. [Second biggest]
3. [Third biggest]
## Rewrite
[The clean version]
## What changed (3 bullets)
- [Top change 1]
- [Top change 2]
- [Top change 3]
Routing — when to delegate
If the draft is squarely in one of the specialized skills' lanes, hand it off:
| Draft type | Hand off to |
|---|
| Cold email, LinkedIn DM, intro request | cold-email-coach |
| Op-ed, opinion piece, long-form post | op-ed-coach |
| VC pitch, mission statement, "tell me about yourself" | pitch-coach |
| Thank-you note, gratitude letter | gratitude-note-coach |
| Memo or update where the lede is buried | bluf-rewriter |
| Anything where the user wants it shorter | compression --mode target-count |
| Anything full of jargon | style-tells --target jargon |
If the draft is mixed (e.g., a cold email that's pitching a thesis, or a memo that's also a personal essay), stay here and grade against the full rubric.
The litmus question
Before handing back the rewrite, ask yourself:
"How will this make the recipient feel?"
If you can't answer, the rewrite isn't done.
When the user wants a "second opinion" not a rewrite
Some users want critique without a rewrite. Respect that. In that case, output the score + critique, skip the rewrite, and offer: "Want me to take a swing at the rewrite, or do you want to take it from here?"
