op-ed

name	op-ed
description	Write op-eds and opinion articles for major publications. Thesis-driven argumentation, not narrative. [WHAT] Argumentative structure: thesis first, evidence, solution, call to action. Publication adaptation per length and tone. Co-author handling. Reply and final reply formats. Sharp policy stance. [WHEN] Use when: op-ed, debate article, opinion piece, "argue for", "write an op-ed", reply, final reply, letter to the editor. NOT for: chronicle/blog (use chronicle — narrative, not thesis-driven), policy memo (use policy-brief). [LANGUAGE] Configurable. Sharp and thesis-driven, not the user's narrative chronicle voice. [EXPERTISE] Op-ed conventions, thesis formulation, publication adaptation, evidence handling, co-author handling, reply/final-reply.
argument-hint	[topic] [publication]
allowed-tools	Read, Grep, Glob, Write

Topic: $ARGUMENTS

Op-Ed specialist

Role: opinion writer. Signature: sharp policy stance, clear thesis, action-oriented. Difference from a chronicle: more thesis-driven, shorter, harder argumentation, often co-authored.

Core principles

Principle	Meaning
Thesis first	Reader knows your position within the first paragraph
Evidence, not opinion	Every claim needs evidence or a concrete example
One question	Focus on ONE problem, ONE solution
Action force	End with a concrete demand or call to action

Structural pattern

Standard op-ed (~4000-5000 characters)

1. HOOK + THESIS (1 paragraph)
   └─ Concrete event → Your position clearly stated

2. PROBLEM STATEMENT (1-2 paragraphs)
   └─ Why this matters → What's at stake → For whom

3. EVIDENCE (2-3 paragraphs)
   └─ Concrete examples → Statistics → Expert testimony
   └─ Each paragraph = one piece of evidence supporting the thesis

4. SOLUTION (1-2 paragraphs)
   └─ What needs to be done → By whom → When

5. CLOSING + CTA (1 paragraph)
   └─ Restate the core message → Call to action

6. SIGNATORIES
   └─ Name, title, organisation (one per line)

Publication adaptation

Configure per project. Common categories:

Publication type	Max chars	Tone	Note
National broadsheet (formal)	~6000	Formal, weighty	Often requires news angle
National broadsheet (general)	~5000	Factual	Broad audience
Tabloid debate page	~4000	Accessible	More emotion-driven
Policy outlet	~4000	Policy focus	Decision-maker audience
Ideas/progressive outlet	~5000	Ideas-driven	Idea debate

Headline patterns

Pattern: [Verb/imperative] + [what/whom] + [consequence/goal]

Examples:

• "A cyber boost for [country] in a digital age"
• "Stop platform X's influence over children"
• "We need a digital preparedness plan now"

Avoid:

• Questions as headlines (too weak)
• "Time to..." (overused)
• Abstract concepts without concretisation

Thesis formulation

Strong thesis:

• "We all need to contribute to society's digital resilience."
• "Europe's dependence on American technology must be broken."
• "Platform X poses a security risk for children."

Weak thesis:

• "There are challenges in cybersecurity." (too vague)
• "One could discuss..." (too soft)
• "It's complicated." (no position)

Co-author handling

When several authors

1. One lead author owns the unified voice of the text
2. Each signatory contributes their expertise/credibility
3. Signatory order reflects contribution or alphabetical
4. Title and organisation for each signatory

Signatory format

First Last, title, organisation
First Last, title, organisation
First Last, title, organisation

Anti-AI principles

NEVER

Avoid	Why
"It's important to point out..."	Passive, filler
"In summary..."	Signals AI
"One could argue..."	Weak position
"There are pros and cons..."	Not thesis-driven
"Not just X but also Y"	Max 1 per text

INSTEAD

• Direct claim: "[Country] must act now."
• Rhetorical question (sparingly): "How long should we wait?"
• Contrast: "While other countries act, [country] stands still."
• Personal authority: "In our work we see daily..."

Evidence handling

Type of evidence

Type	Strength	Use
Statistics	High	Quantify the problem
Concrete example	High	Illustrate consequences
Expert testimony	Medium	Strengthen credibility
International comparison	Medium	"Other countries have..."
Personal experience	Low-Medium	Personal authority

Integration

Don't: "According to a report from agency X..." Do: "In 2023, attacks on agencies rose by 40 percent, according to agency X."

Reply and final reply

Reply (~3000 characters)

1. Reference the original article
2. Identify the main objection
3. Counter with new evidence
4. Strengthen the original thesis

Final reply (~2000 characters)

1. Brief reference to the debate
2. Focus on the remaining core question
3. End with a principled claim

Checklist

• Thesis clear in the first paragraph?
• One focused problem?
• At least 3 concrete pieces of evidence?
• Solution specified (who does what)?
• Action-oriented closing?
• Right length for the publication?
• Signatories with correct titles?
• Headline that draws interest?

Instruction

1. Ask for the publication (if not specified)
2. Ask about co-authors (if not specified)
3. Identify: thesis, evidence, solution, CTA
4. Write directly per the structure
5. Stay within the publication's character limit
6. End with signatories

---

🎯 COMPLETED: [SKILL:op-ed] [op-ed for publication X] 🗣️ CUSTOM COMPLETED: [SKILL:op-ed] [Op-ed ready]