| name | technical-writing |
| description | Clear-writing guide distilled from Steven Pinker's "The Sense of Style." Use when writing or revising prose that must be clear to a reader — documentation, design docs, specs, explanations, essays, emails, reports, RFCs, release notes — or when asked to make writing clearer, tighter, less academic, or less jargon-laden. Activate for "make this clearer", "tighten this", "why is this hard to read", "edit this for clarity", or any prose-quality pass. |
Technical Writing (The Sense of Style)
A practical guide to clear prose, distilled from Steven Pinker's The Sense of
Style: The Thinking Person's Guide to Writing in the 21st Century (2014). The
whole book reduces to one image and one cause, with four sets of consequences.
Use this when drafting prose (write it right the first time) or revising
prose (run the revision pass at the bottom).
Required first step: read every reference file
This file is only the map. The substance of the skill — the decision rules, the
tables, and the worked before/after rewrites you will actually apply — lives in
the reference files. Before drafting or revising a single sentence, Read all
six, in one batch of parallel Read calls:
references/classic-style.md — the window metaphor in full; the taxonomy of
styles and when classic style may be brokenreferences/curse-of-knowledge.md — the blind-spot mechanics; the external
debugging methodsreferences/coherence.md — the coherence-relation table, connectives, and
rewritesreferences/syntax.md — garden paths, end-weight, center-embedding, with
examplesreferences/mechanics.md — the passive decision rule, the officialese
substitution table, punctuation as a parsing aidreferences/usage.md — the myth-bust table and the real-rules table
They total about 1,100 lines, so reading all of them is cheap — and skipping
any of them is the known failure mode of this skill. The section summaries
below compress each file to a few bullets: enough to navigate, not enough to
apply. An edit made from a summary alone (auto-converting every passive,
stripping every hedge, "fixing" a usage superstition) is exactly the mechanical
misapplication the references exist to prevent. Do not write or edit any prose
until all six files are in context.
The one image: prose is a window onto the world
Classic style treats writing as a clean window: the writer has seen
something real and aims the reader's gaze at it. The reader is a competent
equal — smart, not a student to be lectured, not a judge to be appeased. The
writer has nothing to prove.
Everything that makes prose bad is a smudge on the glass — a place where the
words point at themselves, at the writer's anxiety, or at an abstraction,
instead of at the thing in the world.
Master heuristic. For any sentence ask: Is this a clean window onto a
thing in the world, with a writer showing a reader something — or has it
fogged into talk about the text, the writer's caution, or a concept about a
concept? Fix toward the window.
Write in classic style by default. Break it locally and deliberately — for a
real legal caveat, a genuine scientific limitation, or honest uncertainty — never
out of habit or insecurity. Details and the style taxonomy:
references/classic-style.md.
The one cause: the curse of knowledge
The single best explanation for why good people write bad prose: you can't
imagine what it's like not to know what you already know. It is a cognitive
blind spot, not malice or laziness (Hanlon's razor applies). Because it operates
beneath your awareness, the feeling that something is "obvious" or "clear" is
the symptom, not a defense.
It surfaces as:
- Unexplained jargon and acronyms — spell out every acronym on first use.
- Functional fixity — naming the technical role instead of showing the thing
("an assessment word" vs. "the word TRUE or FALSE"). Show the thing.
- Chunking — stacking expert abstractions the reader can't unpack. Unpack one
level.
- Skipped steps — the "obvious" intermediate the reader can't divine. Include it.
The reliable fixes are external, because you can't self-debug a blind spot.
"Just imagine your reader" fails. In order of reliability: show a draft to a
real reader like your audience → put it in a drawer and reread later as a stranger
→ read it aloud. Be clear without being condescending. Details:
references/curse-of-knowledge.md.
Consequence 1 — coherence: stitch sentences into a train of thought
The reader receives only the linear string of words and rebuilds your tree
of ideas. Individually perfect sentences can still be an incoherent mess. Manage
the reader's mental model:
- Given before new. Topic before comment. Light before heavy. Anchor each new
fact to something already in the reader's mind, placed at the front; land the
new payload at the end.
- Hold one consistent topic in subject position across a passage. Use pronouns
or repeat the noun — do not swap in synonyms ("the organelle", "the
powerhouse") to seem varied.
- Make the relation between adjacent sentences unambiguous. When in doubt,
connect — under-connecting (stripping but / because / so / however for false
"brevity") is the systematic error, because the relation is obvious to you and
not to the reader.
- Prefer affirmatives. Readers remember the proposition and drop the "not"
tag; "X is not dead" can leave them believing "X is dead." Negate only what the
reader was already inclined to believe.
Coherence-relation table, connectives, and rewrites: references/coherence.md.
Consequence 2 — syntax: build sentences the reader's memory can parse
A sentence is a tree; the reader receives a string and reconstructs the tree one
word at a time through a narrow memory bottleneck. Lighten the load:
- Right-branch by default — hang the heaviest, most complex phrase at the
end (end-weight). Front-loaded subordinate clauses hold the main clause hostage.
- Never center-embed — don't jam a clause into the middle of another. Fasten
it to an edge or split the sentence.
- Keep subject and verb close — don't wedge long material between tightly
bound words.
- Kill garden paths — restore the that / which / who you deleted for
"brevity" when its absence invites a wrong first reading.
- Parallel meaning → parallel syntax. Don't vary structure capriciously across
a list or coordination.
- Explode noun-piles (≤ 2–3 modifiers before a head noun) with prepositions
and relative clauses.
Universal escape hatch: when a sentence goes unruly, split it in two. Garden
paths, end-weight, and examples: references/syntax.md.
Consequence 3 — words and mechanics: the surface craft
- Reverbify zombie nouns. Nominalizations embalm verbs into lifeless nouns:
the cancellation of X → cancel X; make an appearance → appear. Keep one
only when it names an already-introduced topic so the next sentence can comment
on it.
- The passive is a legitimate tool — never auto-convert it. Use it when the
affected entity is the running topic, or when the agent is unknown, irrelevant,
or heavy. It's wrong only when it hides a responsible agent ("mistakes were
made") or breaks topic flow.
- Cut compulsive hedges (somewhat, fairly, apparently, in part,
presumably) — but keep a qualifier that carries real scope. Qualify, don't
hedge: spell out the actual condition under which the claim fails instead of
sprinkling vague escape-words.
- Strip metaconcepts — concepts about concepts (level, framework, process,
perspective, approach, model, issue). Name the act or object they wrap.
- Trim officialese —
for the purpose of → to, at this point in time →
now. Substitution table in the reference.
- Intensifiers are disguised hedges — prefer one vivid word:
very big →
huge. Cut tics (actually, basically, really).
Full tables, the passive decision rule, punctuation-as-parsing-aid:
references/mechanics.md.
Consequence 4 — usage: tell real rules from superstitions
Not "anything goes," but reasoned judgment. A rule earns its keep only if it
serves the reader. Don't enforce the superstitions: split infinitives,
terminal prepositions, sentence-initial and/but/because, singular they,
restrictive which, who for whom, sentence-adverb hopefully, less with
measurements, the blanket passive-voice ban. Do enforce the real ones:
its/it's, parallel structure, subject-verb agreement, ambiguous pronoun
reference, dangling modifiers that cause real ambiguity, literally, true
malaprops (lie/lay, flout/flaunt).
Decision order when a dispute arises: clarity first → consult data, not dogma →
diagnose the rule's pedigree (Latin-aping or schoolroom myth ⇒ ignore) → know
your audience (in a sticklerish context, observe even a superstition to avoid
distracting the reader). Full myth-bust and real-rules tables:
references/usage.md.
The revision pass
When revising existing prose, run these in order. Each maps to a reference file
you have already read in full (see "Required first step" above); if any of the
six is not in context, stop and Read it before continuing.
- Window check (whole draft). Where does the prose point at itself, the
writer's caution, or an abstraction instead of the world? Cut metadiscourse
("In this section I will…"), apologies, professional narcissism. → classic-style
- Curse-of-knowledge sweep. Spell out every acronym on first use. Replace
functional labels with the concrete thing. Unpack stacked abstractions. Add the
skipped "obvious" step. Where possible, get a real reader — or set it aside and
reread as a stranger. → curse-of-knowledge
- Coherence sweep. Check given-before-new ordering; one consistent topic per
passage; an unambiguous connective between adjacent sentences; affirmatives over
negations. → coherence
- Syntax sweep. Find garden paths, center-embedding, subject–verb gaps,
front-loaded heavy clauses, non-parallel lists, noun-piles. Split unruly
sentences. → syntax
- Word/mechanics sweep. Reverbify zombie nouns; justify or rewrite each
passive; cut hedges and intensifiers; strip metaconcepts; apply the
officialese→plain table. → mechanics
- Usage sweep. Fix the real errors; stop "correcting" the superstitions;
resolve disputes by clarity + audience. → usage
Don't apply the rules as a mechanical checklist over the master heuristic — the
window comes first. A rule yields whenever following it would fog the glass.
