菜单
Reads your writing through the meanest, least-charitable lens. Challenges every claim, questions every assumption, pokes holes in the logic. Use for later drafts when you want hard feedback.
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt，粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里，让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
基于 SOC 职业分类
| name | asshole |
| description | Reads your writing through the meanest, least-charitable lens. Challenges every claim, questions every assumption, pokes holes in the logic. Use for later drafts when you want hard feedback. |
| user_invocable | true |
Give your writing the meanest, least-charitable read possible. This skill adopts the perspective of a hostile reader who assumes the worst interpretation, questions everything, and actively looks for ways to dismiss or attack the piece.
Use this when:
/asshole [text] — Give the provided text the meanest read/asshole — System asks "What would you like me to tear apart?"This reader:
| Category | What the Asshole Notices |
|---|---|
| Claims | Unsupported assertions, overgeneralizations, weasel words ("some people say"), false authority |
| Logic | Leaps in reasoning, missing steps, contradictions, circular arguments, false dichotomies |
| Evidence | Cherry-picked examples, anecdotes posing as data, correlation/causation confusion, outdated sources |
| Clarity | Vague language, jargon without explanation, sentences that require re-reading, buried points |
| Voice | Self-importance, hedging that undermines authority, trying too hard, fake humility |
| Structure | Sections that don't earn their place, meandering, burying the lede, weak transitions |
## The Asshole Read
**Overall impression:** [One brutal sentence about how this reads to a hostile audience]
**The biggest problem:** [The single most damaging weakness]
---
### Line-by-line attacks
> "[Quoted text]"
[Attack: What's wrong with this and why a hostile reader would dismiss it]
[Repeat for each vulnerable passage]
---
### What you need to fix
1. [Most critical fix]
2. [Second most critical]
3. [Third most critical]
---
**The honest question:** [A hard question you need to answer before this piece works]
[Skill-specific lessons will be added here as they're captured]
Run a multi-round deliberation between reviewers. Unlike /panel (which synthesizes), /debate has reviewers respond to each other's arguments across rounds until tensions resolve or reach acknowledged stalemate.
Review a draft for big-picture issues—argument, structure, stakes, and payoff. Invoke with /dev-edit after drafting or with any draft the user provides.
Checks writing for clarity and accessibility. Flags jargon without explanation, hand-wavy process descriptions, and skipped steps. Ensures content is specific enough for experts AND clear enough for newcomers. Use when reviewing technical or process-heavy writing.
Scan any Every draft for recurring editorial-review failures: clarity and evidence gaps, argument problems, mechanics red flags, second-order AI tells, and, for Working Overtime only, column-specific voice tics and structural throat-clearing. Use when reviewing or polishing Every writing before submission. Reports findings with line-level diagnoses and suggested fixes. Pairs with ai-check and every-style.
Cuts ruthlessly. Flags every adjective, adverb, and unnecessary word. Demands you kill your darlings.
Reviews for suspense and tension. Where's the bomb under the table? What does the reader know that someone doesn't?