Menú
Applies Vonnegut's 8 rules for writing. Start close to the end, give characters wants, be a sadist, etc.
Instalar con Codex o Claude Copia este prompt, pégalo en Codex, Claude u otro asistente, y deja que revise la página de la skill y la instale por ti.
Basado en la clasificación ocupacional SOC
| name | vonnegut |
| description | Applies Vonnegut's 8 rules for writing. Start close to the end, give characters wants, be a sadist, etc. |
| user_invocable | true |
Check your writing against Kurt Vonnegut's eight rules for fiction—which apply to nonfiction too. This skill audits your piece for the fundamentals that make stories work.
Use this when:
/vonnegut [text] — Audit the provided text against the 8 rules/vonnegut — System asks "What piece should I audit?"Every sentence must do one of two things: reveal character or advance the action. If it does neither, cut it.
Check: Is there anything here that a reader would skip? Anything that made you feel smart but doesn't serve them?
Even in nonfiction, readers need someone to follow. That might be you, a subject, or a stand-in for the reader.
Check: Who does the reader care about in this piece? Why should they want that person to succeed?
Want creates movement. A character (or writer, or reader) who wants nothing is dead on the page.
Check: What does the main figure in this piece want? Is that want visible from the start?
This is rule one restated as a practical test. If a sentence fails both, it goes.
Check: Can you justify every sentence? What would be lost if it disappeared?
Don't give backstory. Don't set up. Start where things are already happening.
Check: Where does this piece actually begin? Could you cut the first paragraph and lose nothing?
Conflict reveals character. Comfort hides it. Your subjects (including yourself) should struggle.
Check: What's hard in this piece? Where's the difficulty, failure, or resistance?
If you try to please everyone, you'll please no one. Write as if for a single specific reader.
Check: Who is this piece for? Can you name them? Would they recognize themselves?
No mysteries for mystery's sake. No withholding to seem clever. Trust the reader with information.
Check: Are you hiding anything that the reader should know earlier? Are you being coy?
## Vonnegut Audit
### Rule-by-Rule Check
| Rule | Verdict | Notes |
|------|---------|-------|
| 1. Time well spent | ✓ / ✗ | [Brief note] |
| 2. Someone to root for | ✓ / ✗ | [Brief note] |
| 3. Character wants something | ✓ / ✗ | [Brief note] |
| 4. Every sentence earns its place | ✓ / ✗ | [Brief note] |
| 5. Starts close to the end | ✓ / ✗ | [Brief note] |
| 6. Sadist (conflict present) | ✓ / ✗ | [Brief note] |
| 7. Written for one person | ✓ / ✗ | [Brief note] |
| 8. Information given freely | ✓ / ✗ | [Brief note] |
---
### The Main Issue
**Biggest violation:** [Which rule is most broken and why]
**How to fix it:** [Specific suggestion]
---
### Other Notes
[Any other observations that don't fit the rules but matter]
---
Pass: [X/8 rules]
[Skill-specific lessons will be added here as they're captured]
Reads your writing through the meanest, least-charitable lens. Challenges every claim, questions every assumption, pokes holes in the logic. Use for later drafts when you want hard feedback.
Run a multi-round deliberation between reviewers. Unlike /panel (which synthesizes), /debate has reviewers respond to each other's arguments across rounds until tensions resolve or reach acknowledged stalemate.
Review a draft for big-picture issues—argument, structure, stakes, and payoff. Invoke with /dev-edit after drafting or with any draft the user provides.
Checks writing for clarity and accessibility. Flags jargon without explanation, hand-wavy process descriptions, and skipped steps. Ensures content is specific enough for experts AND clear enough for newcomers. Use when reviewing technical or process-heavy writing.
Scan any Every draft for recurring editorial-review failures: clarity and evidence gaps, argument problems, mechanics red flags, second-order AI tells, and, for Working Overtime only, column-specific voice tics and structural throat-clearing. Use when reviewing or polishing Every writing before submission. Reports findings with line-level diagnoses and suggested fixes. Pairs with ai-check and every-style.
Cuts ruthlessly. Flags every adjective, adverb, and unnecessary word. Demands you kill your darlings.