op-ed-coach

Stars9

Forks3

UpdatedMay 14, 2026 at 20:59

Drafts and critiques op-eds, opinion pieces, and LinkedIn long-form posts using Glenn Kramon's framework, Katie Kingsbury's NYT Opinion guidance, and Nicholas Kristof's storytelling rules. Use when the user is writing an op-ed, an opinion piece, a Substack essay, a LinkedIn long-form post, or pitching one to a publication. Triggers on "op-ed," "opinion piece," "essay," "column," "pitch to NYT," "Substack post," "LinkedIn article."

Installation

Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.

Source

kalyvask

kalyvask/winning-writing

View GitHub Repository View Creator Repositories

Download

Related occupationsSOC

Based on SOC occupation classification

News Analysts, Reporters, and JournalistsArts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Occupations·SOC 27-3023

Writers and AuthorsSOC 27-3043

SKILL.md

readonly

name

op-ed-coach

description

Op-ed coach

Source: points/frameworks.md (op-ed structure section), points/kramon-master.md section VII, points/examples-and-critiques.md.

The three-element rule (Kramon's tightest framing)

Every op-ed has three elements, in this order:

Story. A specific scene with one character. Date, place, sensory detail. Open here.
Statistics. A few — not many. Two or three numbers that prove the story isn't isolated.
Solution. What to do about it. Don't be a Debbie Downer.

If a draft is missing any of the three, fix the missing element before any other pass. The most common gap: drafts heavy on story and statistics, weak or absent on solution.

The five questions below produce the three elements; the three elements are what reaches the reader. Use both: questions to plan, elements to structure.

The five questions to answer before writing

If the user can't answer all five in one sentence each, do not start the draft. Push back and ask.

Who is your audience? — name the reader, not "everyone"
Which publication? — NYT, WSJ, Atlantic, Substack, LinkedIn?
Why you? — were you in the room? Lived experience? What makes your voice unique on this topic?
Why now? — what's the news hook? Why this week and not last year?
What's your solution? — don't be a Debbie Downer. Provide answers, not just complaints.

Structure (in order)

Cinematic opener — a real person, a vivid scene, sensory detail. Date, place, image.
Thesis — one sentence. Bold and arguable. Not a neutral description.
Specific examples — real names, real numbers, real interviews
Refute the best counterargument — not a strawman. The strongest version of the other side.
Actionable solution — concrete, not abstract
Connect to broader trend — what wave does this sit on?

What gets published

Interview real people — in person or Zoom. Editors can tell when you only used web research.
Co-author with a recognized expert — dramatically increases publication odds
Cinematic examples — real people as heroes
Why-you is essential — the Stanford Law student got published because she was in the room
Universality — the best pieces make readers say "that's happening everywhere"

Length

500–800 words. No more. Cut to fit.

Headline rules

A bold, arguable claim — not a neutral description.

✅ "Olympians earn the IOC billions. Guess who the IOC almost never pays." ✅ "Option trading is rigged against average investors." ✅ "Why women should coach boys' sports."

❌ "Some thoughts on Olympic compensation." ❌ "The state of options trading."

Katie Kingsbury (NYT Opinion) signals

They commission more than they accept unsolicited — but resubmit if declined, she encourages it
Jargon removal is her top priority — write for a general audience
Anonymous bylines are extremely rare
Storytelling > polemics. Personal narratives, character profiles win.

Mode 1 — Help draft from scratch

Walk through the five questions. Then write the cinematic opener first, then the thesis, then build out. Do not start at the introduction and write linearly.

Mode 2 — Critique an existing draft

Score against the structure list. Flag:

Opening that's abstract instead of cinematic
Missing "why now"
No real interviews — only web research
Strawman counterarguments
Complaint without solution
Headline that's a description, not a claim
Length over 800 words

Quote the failing lines. Rewrite them.

When you finish

Hand back: (a) the rewritten op-ed, (b) three alternative headlines, (c) a "why-you / why-now" pitch paragraph the user can paste into a submission email.

More from this repository

same repository

pitch-coach

kalyvask/winning-writing

Drafts and critiques business pitches, investor decks, mission statements, and personal pitches using the 7-part pitch framework, S.H.I.T., and the six-word test. Use when the user is writing a VC pitch, a deck narrative, a "tell me about yourself," a LinkedIn bio, a one-pager, a founding story, or any pitch about themselves or their company. Triggers on "pitch," "deck," "investor," "mission statement," "tell me about yourself," "founding story," "LinkedIn bio," "elevator pitch."

2026-08-019

speech-coach

kalyvask/winning-writing

Drafts and critiques speeches, talks, keynotes, lightning talks, demo-day pitches, all-hands updates, conference presentations, wedding toasts, and any spoken-delivery piece using Glenn Kramon's 12 wowing-the-crowd rules from Stanford GSB's Winning Writing. Use when the user is preparing a talk, presentation, keynote, panel opener, board presentation, all-hands, town hall, demo-day pitch, toast, eulogy, commencement address, or any piece that will be delivered aloud. Triggers on phrases like "I'm giving a talk," "preparing a speech," "keynote," "all-hands," "demo day pitch," "wedding toast," "panel opener," "TED-style," "deliver this aloud," "speaking at," "presentation script."

2026-08-019

bluf-rewriter

kalyvask/winning-writing

Reorganizes a memo, email, status update, or report so the bottom line is up front. Implements Kramon's BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front) rule. Use when a draft buries the lede, opens with context instead of conclusion, or builds up to the point with "organ music." Triggers on "BLUF," "lede," "buried," "memo," "status update," "exec summary," "TL;DR."

2026-06-109

compression

kalyvask/winning-writing

Cuts a draft to a target word count without losing substance. Two modes behind one skill. target-count hits a specific number (200 for a cold email, 500 for an op-ed, 6 for a product summary). redundancy catches the specific failure where a phrase says what the verb or context already implied — "going forward" after a future-tense verb, "as I mentioned earlier," "reduce so they are smaller." Implements Kramon's "rewrite this in less than 100 words" exercise, the six-word summary drill, and the in-class redundancy exercise. Use when the user says "shorten this," "cut this," "tighten," "make it concise," "too many words," "going forward," "say it twice," "redundant." Pass --mode target-count|redundancy|both (default both) and --target-words N for target-count.

2026-06-109

winning-writing

kalyvask/winning-writing

Mode-aware writing critic. Distilled from Rachel Konrad's Stanford GSB "Winning Writing" course (spring 2026), the 10 rules of cold outreach, Heidi Roizen's mailing rules, and live class critiques. Loads a rule catalog (rules/catalog.json) and a mode definition (rules/modes.json) at invocation. Use whenever drafting or critiquing a cold email, outreach message, LinkedIn intro, exec memo, personal essay, bio, README, or LinkedIn post. Pass a mode argument to filter which rules apply.

2026-05-289

rhythm-killer

kalyvask/winning-writing

Fixes two sentence-rhythm tells that mark prose as AI-generated. Two targets behind one skill, picked via the --target arg. fragment-chain (three or more short sentences back-to-back) and uniform-length (two or more consecutive sentences within ~2 words of each other, especially with parallel structure). Use when the user says "reads like AI," "too choppy," "same length sentences back to back," "staccato," "fragments piled up," "rhythm is off," "uniform pacing." Pass --target fragment-chain|uniform-length|all (default all).

2026-05-249

name

op-ed-coach

description

Op-ed coach

Source: points/frameworks.md (op-ed structure section), points/kramon-master.md section VII, points/examples-and-critiques.md.

The three-element rule (Kramon's tightest framing)

Every op-ed has three elements, in this order:

Story. A specific scene with one character. Date, place, sensory detail. Open here.
Statistics. A few — not many. Two or three numbers that prove the story isn't isolated.
Solution. What to do about it. Don't be a Debbie Downer.

If a draft is missing any of the three, fix the missing element before any other pass. The most common gap: drafts heavy on story and statistics, weak or absent on solution.

The five questions below produce the three elements; the three elements are what reaches the reader. Use both: questions to plan, elements to structure.

The five questions to answer before writing

If the user can't answer all five in one sentence each, do not start the draft. Push back and ask.

Who is your audience? — name the reader, not "everyone"
Which publication? — NYT, WSJ, Atlantic, Substack, LinkedIn?
Why you? — were you in the room? Lived experience? What makes your voice unique on this topic?
Why now? — what's the news hook? Why this week and not last year?
What's your solution? — don't be a Debbie Downer. Provide answers, not just complaints.

Structure (in order)

Cinematic opener — a real person, a vivid scene, sensory detail. Date, place, image.
Thesis — one sentence. Bold and arguable. Not a neutral description.
Specific examples — real names, real numbers, real interviews
Refute the best counterargument — not a strawman. The strongest version of the other side.
Actionable solution — concrete, not abstract
Connect to broader trend — what wave does this sit on?

What gets published

Interview real people — in person or Zoom. Editors can tell when you only used web research.
Co-author with a recognized expert — dramatically increases publication odds
Cinematic examples — real people as heroes
Why-you is essential — the Stanford Law student got published because she was in the room
Universality — the best pieces make readers say "that's happening everywhere"

Length

500–800 words. No more. Cut to fit.

Headline rules

A bold, arguable claim — not a neutral description.

✅ "Olympians earn the IOC billions. Guess who the IOC almost never pays." ✅ "Option trading is rigged against average investors." ✅ "Why women should coach boys' sports."

❌ "Some thoughts on Olympic compensation." ❌ "The state of options trading."

Katie Kingsbury (NYT Opinion) signals

They commission more than they accept unsolicited — but resubmit if declined, she encourages it
Jargon removal is her top priority — write for a general audience
Anonymous bylines are extremely rare
Storytelling > polemics. Personal narratives, character profiles win.

Mode 1 — Help draft from scratch

Walk through the five questions. Then write the cinematic opener first, then the thesis, then build out. Do not start at the introduction and write linearly.

Mode 2 — Critique an existing draft

Score against the structure list. Flag:

Opening that's abstract instead of cinematic
Missing "why now"
No real interviews — only web research
Strawman counterarguments
Complaint without solution
Headline that's a description, not a claim
Length over 800 words

Quote the failing lines. Rewrite them.

When you finish

Hand back: (a) the rewritten op-ed, (b) three alternative headlines, (c) a "why-you / why-now" pitch paragraph the user can paste into a submission email.