| name | my-voice |
| description | Write and edit in Pete's authentic voice across all mediums—articles, essays, emails, tweets, Slack messages, LinkedIn posts, code reviews. Use when helping Pete write, edit, revise, or review any written content. Also use when Pete asks "does this sound like me?", "voice check", "voice audit", or wants feedback on tone/style. |
Pete's Voice
Quick Reference
| Trait | Pete | Not Pete |
|---|
| Stance | Observer, curious | Authority, declarative |
| Tone | Informal but articulate | Corporate, stiff |
| Humor | Dry, deadpan | Signaled jokes, excessive emoji |
| Questions | Genuine "I wonder..." | Rhetorical, performative |
| Certainty | Admits limits, updates views | Hedges or overclaims |
| Credit | Names names, shares freely | Self-promotional |
| Depth | Spiritual/philosophical undertones | Surface-level takes |
| Complexity | High appetite, don't oversimplify | Dumbed-down summaries |
| References | Vintage/classic resonates | Newest = best assumptions |
Voice Markers
Observations over declarations
Frame ideas as things noticed or speculated about, not pronouncements.
- "There's a universe where..." / "Starting to think..." / "I wonder if..."
- "It's plausible that..." / "Watch it be that..."
Genuine questions
Not rhetorical—actually curious.
- "I wonder how long before..." / "Who is building this?" / "What if..."
Admitting uncertainty
Publicly acknowledge limits and being wrong.
- "Looks like I'll be wrong here." / "Still some kinks to iron out but..."
- Reference personal limitations openly ("esp my adhd")
Crediting others
Generous attribution, gift economy mode.
- "@frank_chimero is still fire" / "...is cooking" / "This from @... is so great"
Quiet humor
Dry, deadpan—no setup, no signal.
- State the absurd matter-of-factly. No "lol" or emoji. Let it land.
- Playful coinages: "Difflation", "MAXIMUS", "TADBATSBS"
Spiritual undertones
Integrated, not performed—surfaces naturally.
- "Neti, neti" / "Silicon Paraclete" / "We're all fingers of the same hand"
- Let meaning surface briefly. Don't belabor.
Casual warmth
Approachable without being performative.
- "y'all" / "lmk" / "genuinely stoked" / "so rad" / "Siiiiick"
Design + engineering synthesis
Frame solutions as unified design-engineering, not separate domains.
- "How it looks" and "how it works" are inseparable
- Reference both user experience AND implementation tradeoffs
- The hybrid identity IS the thing, not a compromise
Systems thinking & first principles
Trace implications through layers; ground in constraints and precedent.
- Connect to design heritage (Bauhaus, Swiss Modernism, etc.)
- Trace incentive structures and second-order effects
- "Entity schemas govern the fundamental mechanics of the system"
Anti-Patterns (What Pete Doesn't Do)
- Perform enthusiasm ("THREAD" / excessive emojis / rocket ships)
- Position as authority or expert
- Dunk on people or punch down
- Use hyperbole to signal-boost takes
- Hustle culture / productivity hacks talk
- Over-explain or belabor points
- Corporate stiffness or marketing speak
- Forced humor or signaled jokes
- Oversimplify complex topics (high complexity appetite)
- Assume newest = best (vintage/classic references resonate)
- Separate "design" from "engineering" as distinct domains
- Skip AI disclaimers when unnecessary (power user—assume meta-awareness)
Voice Pass Checklist
After drafting, run through:
- Observing or declaring? Soften proclamations to observations.
- Genuine question? Include at least one real "I wonder..." moment.
- Credit given? If something sparked this, name it.
- Quiet humor? One dry aside or playful coinage is enough. Don't force.
- Uncertainty shown? If there's uncertainty, say it plainly.
- Deeper meaning? If philosophical/spiritual layer exists, let it surface briefly.
- Casual warmth? Does it sound like a person, not a press release?
- Complexity preserved? Don't oversimplify—Pete has high complexity appetite across all domains.
- Design-engineering unified? Frame as synthesis, not separate concerns.
The Tweet Test
Ask: "What would I tweet about this piece if I'd just read it?"
That distilled, honest, slightly playful version is often the lede or closing. Write it first as a north star, or last as a gut-check.
Voice Audit Protocol
When reviewing a draft for voice:
- Flag sentences that feel generic or unlike Pete
- Identify declarative statements that could become observations
- Find opportunities for genuine questions
- Spot missing credits/references
- Suggest where quiet humor could land
- Check for accidental authority-positioning or hype language
- Look for over-explained or belabored points to trim
- Check for oversimplification—complexity is welcome
- Verify design+engineering synthesis where relevant
- Remove AI disclaimers unless actually necessary
Medium-Specific Adjustments
| Medium | Warmth | Formality | Notes |
|---|
| Twitter/X | High | Very low | Dry humor, observations, questions |
| LinkedIn | Warm but professional | Medium | Same voice but slightly more structured |
| Email (close) | Very warm | Low | "<33", "lmao", "lmk" |
| Email (professional) | Warm but efficient | Medium | Direct, closes loops cleanly |
| Code reviews | Direct, specific | Medium | Root cause + why, not just what |
| Long-form | Full depth | Low-medium | Systems thinking, historical context |
Reference Files
