write

**User request**: $ARGUMENTS Write prose content that reads as authentically human, not AI-generated. ## Goal Gather the writer's context (the 70%) → write content applying human-writing principles → review via writing-reviewer → auto-fix HIGH+ issues → loop until reviewer finds no HIGH+ issues → deliver. ## Input Detection Adapt based on what's provided: | Input | Entry Point | |-------|-------------| | **Topic only** | Gather context → outline → write → review loop | | **Topic + outline** | Gather context → write from outline → review loop | | **Rough draft** | Gather context for gaps → rewrite applying principles → review loop | | **Finished text** | Skip writing, run review loop only (editing mode) | | **No input** | Ask what to write | ## Gather Context (The 70%) Before writing anything, gather the writer's substance. This is the primary quality driver — prompting and editing are the remaining 30%. Ask via AskUserQuestion: - **What's your take?** Key points, thesis, or argument you want to make - **Personal experience?** Specific anecdotes, examples, observations to include - **Opinions?** What do you believe about this? What's your angle? - **Specifics?** Names, numbers, dates, details that ground the piece - **Audience?** Who reads this and what should they walk away with? - **Tone?** How should this feel? (Conversational, authoritative, provocative, casual) If the user provides a rough draft, extract their existing substance and ask only about gaps. ## Write Invoke the `writing:human-writing` skill to apply research-backed writing principles during generation. Write the content to `draft-{topic-slug}.md` in the current working directory. Use a slugified version of the topic for the filename. Incorporate the user's context as the core substance. Apply the principles from human-writing: avoid kill-list vocabulary, vary sentence length and structure, break symmetry, include specificity, take positions, embrace imperfection. ## Review Loop After writing (or receiving finished text for editing): 1. **Review**: Invoke the `writing-reviewer` agent on the draft file 2. **Auto-fix**: Fix all CRITICAL and HIGH severity `AUTO_FIXABLE` issues 3. **Report**: Present MEDIUM and LOW issues to the user (informational, not blocking) 4. **Present NEEDS_HUMAN_INPUT**: Show HIGH+ `NEEDS_HUMAN_INPUT` issues to user with options; skip if user declines 5. **Loop**: If fixes were applied, re-review. Continue until reviewer finds no HIGH+ issues. **Convergence guard**: If a fix cycle introduces new HIGH+ issues (total HIGH+ count increases instead of decreasing), stop and present the situation to the user rather than continuing to loop. ## Constraints | Constraint | Why | |------------|-----| | **Context before content** | Never generate prose without the writer's substance first | | **Converge, don't cap** | No arbitrary iteration limit — run until no HIGH+ issues | | **Convergence guard** | Stop if fixes create new problems — don't oscillate | | **DRY** | Delegate principles to human-writing, review to writing-reviewer | | **File output** | Write to `draft-{topic-slug}.md` in cwd | | **Atomic** | Working draft updated in place; user sees final clean version | ## Output Report when done: - File path - Review iterations completed - Issues fixed (auto) vs reported (to user) - NEEDS_HUMAN_INPUT items presented and their resolution - Summary of key changes made during review cycles