| name | publisher-nl |
| description | Turn a finished, warrant-labelled analysis into a publishable Dutch markdown article. Use when the user asks to write/publish a completed analysis as an article ("schrijf een artikel", "maak er een publicabel stuk van", "publiceer dit", "turn this into a piece"). This skill writes only; it does not research. It preserves the warrant chain: no new load-bearing facts, no stronger phrasing than the analysis supports, weak claims hedged and attributed. |
Publisher NL
Convert a completed truth-seeking analysis into a Dutch article that reads well without breaking the evidence chain.
Use Only When
- Input is a finished analysis from
investigative-reasoning, peer-review, scientific-fact-classification, osint-research, fallacy-bias-manipulation-analysis, first-principles-thinking, or belief-revision;
- the user wants a publishable article, not a summary, first-pass research, or an opinion piece in the user's own voice;
- the analysis includes warrant labels and sources.
If the input is unaudited or source-light, stop and offer to run the right analytical skill first. Do not fill gaps from memory.
Non-Negotiables
- Write in Dutch markdown.
- Do no new research and add no factual claim absent from the analysis.
- Inventory before writing: core verdict, load-bearing claims + warrant labels, open questions, bias self-audit, sources, and source-network caveats.
- Every load-bearing article sentence must trace to that inventory.
- Preserve the analysis's uncertainty. You may write more cautiously, never more strongly.
- Do not show warrant labels in the article; express warrant through sourcing, attribution, and hedging.
- Always include "Wat we (nog) niet weten" and "Bronvermelding".
- State final word count excluding "Bronvermelding" and superscript markers, plus whether the language check was manual or tool-assisted.
Calibration
| Analysis label | Strongest article phrasing |
|---|
(traced) | Direct assertion with source marker. |
(deferred to consensus) | Assertion naming the body where it carries weight. |
(deferred, fragile) | Hedged assertion naming the failure mode. |
(memory — unverified) | Hedged, attributed, never load-bearing alone. |
(user-supplied — unverified) | Same; if central, the article is not ready. |
If removing a weakly warranted claim collapses the conclusion, stop and flag the gap.
Length
Ask for or use the target word count. Count everything except "Bronvermelding" and <sup>[n]</sup> markers. Aim for +/-10%. If no target is given, write only as long as the material warrants. Never cut attribution, hedges, source markers, or "Wat we (nog) niet weten" to hit length.
Article Shape
# [Kop]
[Inleiding: 1-3 alinea's with probleemstelling, these, kernboodschap/conclusie.]
## [Tussenkop]
[Kern: claim-by-claim, logical chapter order, source markers after supported clauses or sentences.<sup>[1]</sup>]
## [Tussenkop]
[Next step in the argument.<sup>[2]</sup>]
## Wat we (nog) niet weten
[Open questions and relevant bias-audit caveats.]
## [Slot]
[Return to the kernboodschap or final open question. No new claims.]
## Bronvermelding
1. Titel bron — Auteur/uitgever, datum (geraadpleegd dd-mm-jjjj).
<https://www.voorbeeld.nl/bron>
Headline and tussenkoppen must stay within the calibration ceiling: honest, specific, no clickbait. Provocative chapter titles are allowed only for genuinely strong findings, never for thin context.
Source Markers And Bronvermelding
- Use numbered HTML superscript markers:
<sup>[1]</sup>.
- Put markers after the supported clause or sentence, after punctuation.
- Number sources by first appearance; reuse the same number for repeat citations.
- Every marker must resolve to one Bronvermelding item, and every item must be cited.
- Prefer traced primary sources over secondaries.
- Each entry: descriptive line, two trailing spaces, URL on the next indented line.
- Include access dates from the analysis's
(traced) labels.
- If sources share funding, ownership, mandate, or alignment, note that they are not independent corroboration.
- If no URL exists, describe the document and say so.
Quotes And Confidential Sources
- Quote verbatim; mark omissions with
[...] and insertions with [redactie: ...].
- Label translations and keep the original recoverable.
- Do not move quotes into misleading contexts or borrow wording without attribution.
- Protect confidential sources: do not name or identify them in text or Bronvermelding, including by singling detail. Use only a safe description and state that the identity is known but withheld.
- Apply Raad voor de Journalistiek guidance on publication/quotes and source protection, and SPJ ethics on truthful quotation, attribution, anonymity, and keeping promises. If these norms become article-supporting sources, cite them:
Dutch Style
- Good Dutch, official spelling, correct compounds, required hyphens, and correct diacritics.
- Varied sentence length, roughly 15-20 words on average.
- No stylistic en/em dashes; use comma, colon, full stop, or restructure.
- Prefer active verbs, concrete nouns, dates, documents, and numbers.
- Avoid naamwoordstijl, tangconstructies, anglicisms, and needless jargon.
- Enumerations: introduce with a colon; separate items with semicolons; end the last with a full stop.
- No needless repetition. Repeat the kernboodschap only when the slot adds the earned resonance.
- Do a spelling/grammar pass before delivery; use a checker if available, otherwise read manually.
Final Check
Before delivery, verify:
- no new facts or memory claims slipped in;
- every load-bearing sentence traces to the inventory;
- no phrasing exceeds its calibration ceiling;
- all weak claims are hedged and attributed;
- intro has probleemstelling, these, and kernboodschap/conclusie;
- chapters follow a clear order and all have tussenkoppen;
- "Wat we (nog) niet weten" and slot are present;
- quotes, translations, and confidential sources are handled cleanly;
- Dutch spelling, grammar, punctuation, and repetition are checked;
- all markers and Bronvermelding entries match;
- word count is on target or the constraint is explicitly surfaced.
Deliver one markdown article. If the analysis is insufficient, say what is missing instead of writing around the gap.
