メニュー
(foundational) Research, draft, reader-hat, edit, slop-gate, score process for any customer-facing deliverable.
デフォルトでは、最初にソースを確認する Prompt が選択されています。直接コマンドに切り替えるか、ローカルコピーをダウンロードすることもできます。
インストールを決める前に、SKILL.md と SkillsMP に表示されている付属ファイルをお読みください。
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
直接コマンドでは確認用 Prompt が省略されます。実行前にソースを確認してください。
npx skills add https://github.com/dcouple/skills --skill seo-writing-frameworkコマンドは1行のまま表示されます。コピー前に横へスクロールして全体を確認してください。
ローカルで確認しますか？SkillsMP が現在取得できるファイルをダウンロードできます。
SKILL.md を表示中
SOC 職業分類に基づく
| name | seo-writing-framework |
| description | (foundational) Research, draft, reader-hat, edit, slop-gate, score process for any customer-facing deliverable. |
| allowed-tools | ["Read","Edit","Write","Bash","Agent","WebSearch","WebFetch"] |
| when_to_use | Use when producing any customer-facing deliverable: pricing emails, blog posts, landing pages, docs, support replies, announcements, PR descriptions, onboarding copy, or any writing where the words matter. Can be invoked standalone or called by other SEO skills (readability, authority, drafting) as their writing process. Examples: 'write this email', 'draft this announcement', 'help me write this', 'writing framework', 'apply the writing process'. |
| model | claude-opus-4-6 |
| argument-hint | [what to write] [audience] [register] |
| arguments | ["deliverable","audience","register"] |
The process for producing any deliverable that a real person will read. Works for pricing emails, blog posts, landing pages, docs, support replies, announcements, or anything where the words matter.
Important: Run with Claude Opus 4.6.
LLMs generate things that look good. But looking good is not the same as being good. A polished email that says the wrong things is worse than a rough email that says the right things.
The output will be grammatically correct, professionally structured, and completely miss the point. You can't catch this unless you know what the reader needs to hear.
$deliverable: What you're writing (pricing email, blog post, landing page, etc.)$audience: Who's reading it (customers, developers, first-time visitors, etc.)$register: persuasive or explanatory (see below). If not given, infer it and say which one you picked.Some craft moves work on a landing page and read as slop in a support reply. Pick the register before drafting, because it decides which ones are allowed.
Persuasive: landing pages, launch emails, marketing copy, headlines,
comparison pages. The reader hasn't decided to care yet. Curiosity gaps and a
deliberate ending are allowed, within the limits in good-writing-fundamentals.
Explanatory: docs, support replies, changelogs, pricing and policy emails, technical posts, announcements of changes. The reader already has a question. No curiosity gaps, no kicker. End on the last concrete point or the next action.
The banned words and hard-banned patterns apply in both.
Before writing anything, find 3-5 real examples of how good companies or people have written the same type of thing.
Use WebSearch to find examples. Use the codebase to find previous versions
if they exist. If the user has a voice guide in AGENTS.md or VOICE.md,
read it.
Never draft from nothing. LLM output without research input is generic at best, wrong at worst.
Success criteria: 3-5 real examples collected. Voice guide loaded if it exists.
Give the examples to the LLM as context alongside:
The draft will look good. That's the trap.
Success criteria: First draft exists. Do not ship it.
Read the draft as the person receiving it. Not as the person who wrote it.
Ask:
If you can't answer these, the draft needs work.
Success criteria: You can articulate what the reader walks away understanding. Human checkpoint: If the deliverable is high-stakes (pricing, legal, public announcement), present the draft and your reader-hat analysis to the user before proceeding.
The LLM draft will have:
Edit these out. Replace with how the founder or brand actually sounds.
Read it out loud. Not in your head. Out loud. 90% of awkward phrasing is caught by hearing it. If a sentence sounds weird when spoken, rewrite it.
The full pattern list lives in good-writing-fundamentals (words to cut, patterns to cut).
That skill is the canonical inventory. The table further down this file is the
short version for drafting; don't maintain a second copy of the long one.
Success criteria: No LLM-isms remain. Sounds like a person wrote it.
Run good-writing-fundamentals on the draft in detect mode with the register you picked.
It returns named patterns with quoted lines, not a score.
Fix everything it names, then re-run until it comes back clean. This is a pass/fail gate, not a judgment call: a draft that still trips patterns does not proceed to scoring.
Two things the gate is not allowed to do:
Success criteria: good-writing-fundamentals detect returns no findings.
Score the deliverable against the rubric (see below). If it scores below 90%, identify the weakest criteria, revise targeting those, and re-score. Repeat until 90%+.
This is the step that makes the framework a loop, not a one-shot process. Most first revisions land around 70-80%. Two to three revision passes usually get to 90%+.
Success criteria: Deliverable scores 90%+ on the rubric.
These go beyond "don't use LLM-isms." They're what separates writing that works from writing that's just correct.
The test: read it back. Does it sound like someone talking inside your head? Not a press release. Not a committee. A person. If it reads like corporate communications, rewrite it in the voice you'd use explaining it to a friend.
Don't just write short sentences. Monotonous length in either direction is bad. Some sentences should be longer and descriptive, painting a picture, and others should be much shorter. The variation creates rhythm. Without it, the reader's brain turns off.
The limit: never stack three or more fragments in a row. Two consecutive one-word sentences read as emphasis. Four read as AI drama.
After your draft is done, remove every word that isn't doing work. No redundancy, no waste. If a sentence doesn't add information or advance the point, delete it.
A bloated first draft usually loses about 30%, which is where the old "cut 30%" rule came from. Treat that as a typical yield, not a quota. A draft that's already tight loses almost nothing, and cutting to hit a number is how voice gets stripped out.
Formula: action verb + specific outcome + timeframe or contrast. "Ship your startup in days, not weeks." Write at least five headlines before picking one. One will outpull the others by 2-10x.
Get them to read the second sentence. Lead with a direct challenge, a scene-setting story, a specific result, or a confession. Never open with "In today's fast-paced world." Never open with "Let's dive in."
Go three levels deep until you hit something emotional or financial. "Fast database" > "queries load fast" > "users don't bounce" > "you stop waking up stressed about churn." Write from the bottom.
Most copy dies at level one. The feature, not the outcome. Always ask "so what?" until you can't anymore.
Vague problems feel unsolvable. Specific ones feel fixable. Do the math. "4 hrs for emails + 6 hrs for landing page = 22+ hours of headaches" beats "launching is hard."
Tease without revealing. "But that's not even the best part." Open loops keep readers moving because the brain wants to close them.
Rules: persuasive copy only, two per page maximum, and every one gets closed on the same page. An open loop you don't close is a bait line. Never phrase one as a faux-insight setup ("here's what nobody tells you") — that's slop in any register.
In explanatory copy, zero. The reader already has a question; withholding the answer is just friction.
All great writing alternates between opening a question (conflict) and answering it (context). The pattern is: "this happens, therefore this happens, but then this happens." Not: "and then... and then... and then..." which just piles on detail and loses attention.
What's your unique perspective on this topic? The less common it is, the more the reader engages. "Here's how to do SEO" is boring. "Every agent manager is macOS only, we fixed that" is a lens.
Don't trail off with a summary paragraph that restates what they just read. The reader was just there.
In persuasive copy, end with something the reader remembers, and keep it concrete: a callback to a specific thing you named earlier, a real result, a clear action. Not a metaphor, not an aphorism, not a mic drop. If the ending you wrote is "deep," delete it rather than polishing it, and end on the clearest concrete sentence already in the draft.
In explanatory copy, end on the last concrete point or the next action. No kicker at all.
Structure: before state + action + specific outcome + timeframe + emotion. "I wanna cry" beats "Great product!" A good testimonial has the transformation visible in one sentence.
good-writing-fundamentals. If it sounds like a textbook, rewrite it.good-writing-fundamentals detect has to come back clean.| Failure | What it looks like | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Filler phrases | "It's worth noting that" | Delete. Just say the thing. |
| Hedging | "It might be worth considering" | Either say it or don't. |
| Generic enthusiasm | "We're thrilled to announce" | Say what changed and why it matters. |
| Feature listing | "Includes X, Y, and Z" | Run the So What Chain. What problem do they solve? |
| Passive voice | "The update was deployed" | "We deployed the update." |
| Vague benefits | "Improved performance" | Quantify: "Pages load 2x faster." |
| Level-one copy | "Fast database" | Go deeper: "you stop waking up stressed about churn." |
| Textbook opening | "In today's fast-paced world" | Lead with a challenge, story, result, or confession. |
| Same-length paragraphs | Every paragraph is 3 sentences | Vary the length. One short sentence, then a longer one. Rhythm is the tell. |
| Audience mismatch | Using jargon for non-technical readers | Use the words the reader would use. |
| Binary contrast | "It's not a tool. It's a system." | State the second half directly. |
| Faux-insight setup | "What nobody tells you about X" | Cut the setup, make the claim stand alone. |
| Colon reveal | "The best part: it learns." | Rewrite as a plain sentence. |
| Superficial analysis | "...highlighting the team's commitment" | Say the actual consequence for the reader. |
| Importance puffery | "marks a pivotal moment" | State the fact, let the reader judge. |
| Weasel attribution | "experts agree," "studies show" | Name the source or cut the claim. |
| Fake-strong verbs | "serves as a centralized hub for" | "Tracks sponsors, drafts, and due dates in one place." |
| Synonym cycling | agent, then assistant, then tool | Repeat the right word. |
| Fake-profound kicker | A metaphor as the last line | Delete it. End on the clearest concrete sentence. |
good-writing-fundamentals holds the full inventory with before/after rewrites. This table is
the drafting-time short list.
After writing (and after each revision), score the deliverable against this rubric. Must hit 90%+ to ship.
Criteria are split into two tiers:
These are non-negotiable for any deliverable.
| # | Criterion | Weight | What 10/10 looks like | What 0/10 looks like |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Research-derived | 2x | Draft built from 3-5 real examples, not from nothing | LLM drafted from zero context |
| 2 | Sounds human | 2x | Reads like someone talking inside your head | Reads like a committee or AI wrote it |
| 3 | Reader perspective | 2x | Reader walks away knowing exactly what to do | Reader finishes confused |
| 4 | No LLM-isms | 2x | good-writing-fundamentals detect returns zero findings | Filler, hedging, generic enthusiasm, or any named slop pattern |
| 5 | Clarity | 2x | A first-timer understands every sentence | Jargon without context |
| 6 | Every word essential | 2x | Nothing left to remove without losing meaning or voice | Filler, hedging, redundant points |
Criterion 4 is a gate, not a dial. If the step 5 slop gate is still returning findings, the draft isn't ready to score at all. Go back to step 5.
These elevate writing from correct to compelling.
| # | Criterion | Weight | What 10/10 looks like | What 0/10 looks like |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Hook | 1x | First sentence grabs, makes you want the next | Opens with throat-clearing |
| 8 | Sentence rhythm | 1x | Short lines mixed with longer ones, no stacked fragments | Monotonous length, or three-plus fragments in a row |
| 9 | Conflict/context flow | 1x | "Therefore... but then..." momentum | "And then... and then..." |
| 10 | Authentic voice | 1x | Sounds like the person who built it | Generic corporate tone |
| 11 | The ending | 1x | Ends on a concrete point, result, or action the reader can take | Trails off with a summary, or lands on a metaphor |
| 12 | Diverse options presented | 1x | 2-3 distinct options shown before picking one | Single option, take it or leave it |
Universal (6 criteria x 10 pts x 2 weight = 120 max):
Research-derived: 9/10 x2 = 18
Sounds human: 8/10 x2 = 16
Reader perspective: 7/10 x2 = 14 ← needs work
No LLM-isms: 9/10 x2 = 18
Clarity: 8/10 x2 = 16
Every word essential: 6/10 x2 = 12 ← needs work
Craft (6 criteria x 10 pts x 1 weight = 60 max):
Hook: 9/10 x1 = 9
Sentence rhythm: 8/10 x1 = 8
Conflict/context: 7/10 x1 = 7
Authentic voice: 8/10 x1 = 8
The ending: 7/10 x1 = 7
Diverse options: 8/10 x1 = 8
Total: 141 / 180 = 78% → not ready
Focus: cut more words (criterion 6), sharpen reader
perspective (criterion 3)
Most first revisions land 70-80%. Two to three passes get to 90%+.
Before finalizing any deliverable, present 2-3 distinct options. Not variations of the same thing: genuinely different approaches, angles, or framings. Let the user (or the calling skill) pick the strongest one, or combine elements from multiple options.
This applies to: headlines, opening hooks, email framings, page structures, blog angles, comparison approaches. If there's only one obvious way to write it, you haven't explored enough.