blog-writer

name	blog-writer
description	Use when an approved topic must become a researched, source-disciplined article or publishable blog file; use `blog-idea-generator` for topic discovery and `content-writing` for general page copy.
metadata	{"portable":true,"compatible_with":["claude-code","codex"]}

Blog Writer

Acknowledgement: Shared by Peter Bamuhigire, techguypeter.com, [phone].

Produce useful articles with a stated argument, verified claims, genuine voice, and an implementation-ready handoff.

Use When

• An approved topic or buyer question must become a full article.
• An existing post needs a source-backed rewrite, refresh, or editorial review.
• A campaign or authority series needs an article that supports a defined next action.
• The user has authorised writing or updating a project blog file.

Do Not Use When

• The task is to discover or prioritise topics; use blog-idea-generator.
• The work is general website page copy; use content-writing.
• The brief lacks a reader, useful question, or source basis and these cannot be established; stop before drafting.

Required Inputs

Artefact	Source or provider	Required?	When missing
Article brief: reader, question, purpose, point of view, next action	Content owner or blog-idea-generator	yes	Return a brief-completion checklist; do not draft a generic article.
Business facts and author basis	Client files, interviews, or approved notes	yes	Mark unsupported sections and narrow the article to evidenced material.
Factual sources	Verified research or supplied references	conditional	Remove time-sensitive or material claims that cannot be checked.
SEO, internal-link, language, and publishing constraints	SEO/content/project owner	conditional	State assumptions and omit irreversible publishing actions.

Workflow

1. Validate the brief: reader, buyer question, search intent, point of view, proof, author basis, internal links, and next action.
2. Stop if the article would exist only to target a keyword or if its central claim cannot be supported.
3. Build a claim-and-source map; distinguish first-party evidence, external facts, opinion, and inference.
4. Choose a structure from article design that fits the reader's decision rather than a default listicle.
5. Draft the argument with specific examples, trade-offs, constraints, and regional context where supported.
6. Attribute material claims at the point of use and record update-sensitive facts.
7. Edit for reader experience, human voice, scannability, and the standards in the genuine-writing gate.
8. Add metadata, internal-link suggestions, image requirements, and implementation notes when the publishing contract requires them.
9. Run a final source, anti-slop, and handoff review. If a source fails, remove or qualify the dependent claim and re-check the argument.
10. Publish or edit project files only with explicit authority; otherwise return the draft and handoff.

Recovery: repair the brief, source, or claim, then rerun source and editorial checks before handoff.

Quality Standards

• The article answers a real question and contains a defensible argument or practical method.
• Every important factual claim is sourced, attributed, qualified, or removed.
• Examples and quotations are genuine and traceable; placeholders are labelled.
• The opening earns attention with the reader's problem or decision, not generic industry scene-setting.
• Headings, links, CTA, and metadata support the reader rather than pad search volume.
• The draft sounds like the named author or brand and records any evidence gap.

Anti-Patterns

• Drafting from assumed knowledge. Fix: create the claim-and-source map first.
• Opening with a broad industry trend. Fix: begin with the reader's concrete decision or observed problem.
• Publishing keyword-shaped filler. Fix: require an argument, example, comparison, or method.
• Using anonymous comments as high-stakes proof. Fix: find independent evidence or remove the claim.
• Adding invented case details or quotations. Fix: label missing proof and request it.
• Treating clean grammar as editorial quality. Fix: test specificity, intent, judgment, and usefulness.
• Publishing without authority. Fix: return the draft and exact implementation steps.

Outputs

Artefact	Consumer	Observable acceptance condition
Article draft or revised blog file	Content owner and page builder	Complete argument, usable headings, CTA, and no unresolved placeholder presented as fact.
Claim-and-source map	Editor or approver	Every material claim has a source, qualification, or removal decision.
Publishing handoff	SEO and implementation owners	Slug, metadata, internal links, image needs, update date, and unresolved gaps are explicit.

References

• Legacy detailed guidance for preserved end-to-end conventions.
• Ideation and research for research planning after topic approval.
• Article design for structure selection.
• Editorial standards and human voice standards for revision.
• Reader experience and writing craft for prose and navigation.
• Series and launch engine when the article belongs to a campaign.
• Genuine-writing gate for every public draft.
• Blog and authority writing for premium positioning.

Evidence Produced

Evidence	Format	Acceptance condition
Source register	Claim-to-source table	Material facts are traceable and time-sensitive facts carry dates.
Editorial gate result	Checklist or review note	Source integrity, voice, anti-slop, and unresolved gaps are recorded.
Change evidence	Diff or revision notes	A refresh identifies material additions, removals, and retained claims.

Capability Contract

Read and search access are required for research-backed work. Network access is required only for current external facts; otherwise mark them unverified. Editing and asset generation require explicit authority. Publishing, deployment, and external communication require separate explicit authority.

Degraded Mode

Fallback when network, files, image generation, or rendering is unavailable: produce the narrowest supported draft and a verification or asset checklist. Do not treat missing research, image review, link checking, or rendering as passed.

Decision Rules

Choice	Action	Failure or risk avoided
Central claim is well supported	Draft and attribute	Unsupported authority claims
Central claim is useful but evidence is incomplete	Narrow or qualify the article	Confident wrongness
Topic duplicates an existing article	Refresh, merge, or redirect the brief	Cannibalisation
Topic is timely and facts may change	Verify current primary sources and date the review	Stale advice
Publishing authority is absent	Return draft and handoff only	Unauthorised external mutation

Worked Example

Brief: "How Kampala clinics can reduce missed appointments" with clinic scheduling data but no sector-wide statistic. The article uses the clinic's measured pattern as a labelled first-party example, avoids claiming a national rate, and ends with a practical reminder checklist.

Read Next

• premium-commercial-writing for authority-building and premium-fee editorial quality.
• language-standards for multilingual or regional language routing.
• seo for metadata, schema, sitemap, and crawler implementation.