| name | 10-10-post |
| description | Iterative scoring loop for post drafts. Evaluate on 5 criteria, fix weak
areas, re-score until all criteria hit 8+. Max 5 iterations.
Triggers: "score this post", "10/10", "rate this draft", "is this good enough".
|
| user-invocable | true |
10/10 Post
Iterate on a post draft using structured evaluation until it scores 8+ on every criterion.
The Loop
Step 1: Evaluate
Score the draft on 5 criteria (each 1-10):
| Criterion | What to Assess | 8+ Means |
|---|
| Depth | Is there a structural insight beyond the surface story? Does "why" go 2+ levels deep? Is there a broader principle? | Reader learns something about engineering, not just about what happened |
| Specificity | Real numbers from real code? Exact values, not rounded? Details that only come from reading the source? | Post could only be written by someone with access to this codebase |
| Non-obvious | Would this surprise someone who builds similar systems? Is there a "why behind the why"? | Reader's reaction is "I wouldn't have thought of that" |
| Human voice | Contractions present (5+)? Sentence lengths varied? Vulnerable moment? Parenthetical aside? Sounds like a person? | You'd believe a human typed this on their phone |
| Anti-AI | Zero em dashes? Zero AI vocabulary? No negative parallelisms? No synonym cycling? No closing question? Varied structure? | A skeptic scanning for AI tells finds nothing |
Step 2: Identify Weaknesses
For each criterion scoring below 8:
- Name the specific element that's weak
- Quote the exact text that needs fixing
- Describe what "8+" looks like for this specific post
Step 3: Fix
Make targeted fixes for each weakness:
- Depth below 8: Add the second "why." Add the structural principle. Connect to a broader engineering lesson.
- Specificity below 8: Go back to the source file. Find the exact number, the exact config value, the exact timing. Replace vague language with it.
- Non-obvious below 8: Ask: "What would someone assume about this situation? How is reality different?" Add that contrast.
- Human voice below 8: Add contractions. Break a long sentence into a short burst. Add a parenthetical aside. Add a moment of honesty.
- Anti-AI below 8: Scan for em dashes, AI vocabulary, negative parallelisms, synonym cycling. Fix every instance found.
Make 1-3 targeted changes per criterion. Don't overhaul everything at once.
Step 4: Re-evaluate
Go back to Step 1. Score the fixed draft on all 5 criteria.
Stop Condition
Stop when ALL 5 criteria score 8+.
Escape Hatch
If after 5 iterations a criterion is stuck below 8:
- Flag which criterion is stuck and why
- Present the best version to the user with the limitation noted
- Suggest what additional source material might help (e.g., "if we had the actual latency numbers from the monitoring dashboard, Specificity would jump to 9")
Output Format
Per Iteration
=== Iteration [N] ===
| Criterion | Score | Notes |
|-----------|-------|-------|
| Depth | X/10 | [specific assessment] |
| Specificity | X/10 | [specific assessment] |
| Non-obvious | X/10 | [specific assessment] |
| Human voice | X/10 | [specific assessment] |
| Anti-AI | X/10 | [specific assessment] |
Weaknesses: [list what needs fixing]
Fixes applied: [list what was changed]
Final
=== 10/10 Post Result ===
Iterations: [N]
Final scores: Depth [X] | Specificity [X] | Non-obvious [X] | Human [X] | Anti-AI [X]
Status: ALL 8+ | STUCK ON [criterion]
Rules
- Be honest in scoring. Inflated scores defeat the purpose.
- A 7 is not an 8. Close doesn't count.
- Score against the rules in
.claude/rules/, not against your own preferences.
- One fix at a time per criterion. Don't rewrite the entire post each iteration.
- Max 5 iterations. If not 10/10 by then, ship the best version with notes.
