| name | tasteful-output |
| description | Use when producing prose where word choice shapes perception: marketing copy, product descriptions, taglines, hero sections, pitch text, README narrative sections, naming (brands, products, features), positioning statements, design rationale. Do NOT use for code, data analysis, debugging, technical docs, or structured output like JSON/YAML. |
Tasteful Output
The Iron Law
EVERY SENTENCE MUST FAIL THE SUBSTITUTION TEST OR IT GETS REWRITTEN.
The Substitution Test: take any sentence. Replace the product/company name with a competitor's. If the sentence still works — it's slop. It contains zero specific information.
Operating Mode
Before applying the checks, determine the mode:
- Generate: The user asked for new text (write, create, draft, produce) or provided no existing text. Apply the Iron Law strictly. Every sentence must pass or it gets rewritten.
- Refine: The user provided existing text and asked to improve, edit, tighten, rework, or polish it. Apply the same checks, but change the disposition toward the user's existing sentences:
- 5/5: Leave it alone.
- 3-4/5: Preserve the sentence. Note which checks it failed. Offer a tightened version the user can accept or reject. Do not silently rewrite.
- 0-2/5: Rewrite. Genuinely hollow sentences get fixed regardless of mode.
Generate mode is the default. When in doubt, generate.
Genre Classifier
Before applying the gate, classify the content:
| Tier | Content Types | Gate Applied |
|---|
| Full | Product marketing, sales copy, ad copy, feature announcements, case studies, email sequences, comparison pages | All 5 checks strictly |
| Reduced | Brand manifestos, editorial, newsletters, founder letters, vision statements, design rationale | Name Swap + Zombie + 1 author's choice |
| Craft | Social posts <280 chars, personal essays, community docs, internal comms, event content | Voice Test only |
The 5 Checks
1. Name Swap — Replace proper nouns with [PRODUCT]. Still make sense?
- FAIL: "[PRODUCT] helps teams collaborate more effectively"
2. Concreteness Test — Contains at least one concrete, specific, or falsifiable element?
- FAIL: "We save you time" (no concrete element)
3. Who Cares — Would the reader pay to know this? Names/implies a specific person with a specific problem?
- FAIL: "Perfect for modern teams" (who? what teams?)
4. Zombie Test — Remove all adjectives/adverbs. Still says something?
- FAIL: "Our powerful, intuitive platform delivers seamless solutions" → "Our platform delivers solutions" (nothing)
5. So-What Chain — Ask "so what?" three times. Must hit a concrete answer.
- FAIL: "We empower teams" → so what? → "So they can do more" → so what? → "..." (dead end)
Scoring: 5/5 = ship. 3-4 = rewrite with specificity. 0-2 = delete, start from what's actually true.
Loading Rules
Always load before any output: @specificity-test.md
Load @anti-pattern-catalog.md when task is Full or Reduced tier. Then navigate the catalog: load the relevant category router, then the relevant sub-group terminal file.
Load @voice-test.md when task is Reduced or Craft tier, or when output passes the 5 checks but feels clinical.
Load @taste-memory.md for the learning protocol.
Load the taste profile using the following merge logic:
- Load global profile (~/.tasteful-llm/taste-profile.md) if it exists
- Load project profile (.tasteful-llm/taste-profile.md) if it exists
- If both exist, merge: project entries override global entries when they address the same dimension. When in doubt whether two entries address the same dimension, apply both — over-constraining is better than dropping a preference.
- Load the Creative Beliefs section if it exists. Belief entries are self-descriptive — interpret them directly. Examples of how beliefs modify behavior:
subtraction is the primary revision move → apply Zombie Test more aggressively, default to cutting over addingcreator-first, audience-last → when a sentence passes checks but might be inaccessible, keep it — voice > accessibilitypersonality over polish → prefer a rough edge with voice over a perfectly smooth sentenceship and iterate → once output passes the 5 checks, present it — don't over-polishspecificity over accessibility → in the Substitution Test, push for hyper-specific details even if they narrow the audience
Apply all profile entries as additional filters alongside the 5 checks.
After generating creative output that the user explicitly approves or rejects, update the taste profile following the protocol in @taste-memory.md.
Rationalizations
| Excuse | Reality |
|---|
| "The user asked for it this way" | Users ask for outputs, not slop. Deliver the intent without the crutches. |
| "This is standard industry language" | Standard = indistinguishable. That is the definition of the problem. |
| "It needs to sound professional" | Professional means precise, not padded. |
| "I'm being comprehensive" | Comprehensive and specific are not opposites. Be both or cut. |
| "The format requires this structure" | Formats are containers. Slop in a template is still slop. |
| "It's just an introduction/transition" | If a sentence carries no information, delete it. |
| "The user won't notice" | You were hired to be better than what they'd notice. |
| "This is how landing pages are written" | That's exactly why most of them are invisible. |
| "I need to fill this section" | A short section with real content beats a long section with filler. |
| "The tone calls for warmth" | Warmth comes from specificity and care, not exclamation marks. |
| "The user's original was fine" | In Generate mode, there is no original. In Refine mode, "fine" means 3/5+. Below that, it's not fine — it's hollow. |
Red Flags — STOP and Rewrite
If you catch yourself:
- Starting with "In today's..." or "In the world of..."
- Using "seamlessly", "effortlessly", "empower", "leverage", "unlock"
- Writing three adjectives where one fact would do
- Opening with "Great question!" or "Absolutely!"
- Producing parallel items that all say the same thing differently
- Writing a sentence with no falsifiable claim
- Padding with "It's important to note that..."
- Describing something as "robust", "comprehensive", "cutting-edge", "innovative"
- Reaching for journey/landscape/ecosystem metaphors
- Using "Not just X, but Y" where Y restates X
All mean: STOP. Delete. Write something only you could write about only this thing.
