output-structuring

name

Output Structuring

description

Present answers in the most usable format for the reader's next action - direct answer, table, checklist, numbered plan, executive summary, decision memo, email draft, prompt block, implementation plan, or critique. Activate when composing any substantial response, when a deliverable's format is unspecified, or when a draft has grown into a wall of text. Trigger signals: the user will scan rather than read, will act on the output, will forward it, or asked a question whose answer is currently buried in paragraph three.

Output Structuring

Purpose

Format is a usability decision, not decoration. The same content in the wrong shape fails: an answer buried under context goes unread; a narrative where a checklist was needed gets half-executed; a table forced onto nuanced tradeoffs amputates the nuance. Choose the format from one question: what will the reader do with this, and what shape makes that action easiest?

When to use this skill

• Composing any substantial response or deliverable, especially when format wasn't specified.
• A draft has become a wall of text, or a single format is straining (a "table" whose cells hold paragraphs).
• The output will be scanned, forwarded, executed step-by-step, or used to make a decision — each implies a different shape.

When NOT to use this skill

• Short conversational answers. A one-line question gets a one-line answer, not sections. Over-structure is a failure mode, not thoroughness.
• The user specified the format — deliver that, even if you'd have chosen differently.

Operating procedure

Step 1 — Identify the reader's next action. Decide? Execute? Understand? Forward? Fix?

Step 2 — Pick the primary format:

Format	Use when the reader will...	Key rule
Direct answer	Get one fact/verdict and move on	Answer in sentence one; context only if it changes the action
Table	Compare items across the same few attributes	Short enumerable cells; nuance goes in prose around it, never crammed in cells
Checklist	Verify or perform unordered items	Each item independently checkable, starts with a verb
Numbered plan	Execute steps in order	Order = dependency; each step has a done-condition
Executive summary	Decide whether to read further / brief someone	3–6 sentences: situation, finding, recommendation. Never a teaser — the actual conclusions
Decision memo	Make a choice	Recommendation first, then options considered, criteria, risks, what would change the answer
Email draft	Send it	Ready to send verbatim: subject, right register, the ask explicit and early
Prompt block	Paste it into a tool	Fenced code block, zero commentary inside the fence, variables clearly marked
Implementation plan	Build it (or hand to someone who will)	Stages with outputs and done-checks (see deep-decomposition); risks and open questions separate from steps
Critique	Improve their work	Ranked by importance, specific locations, each point actionable; what's good stated too (so they keep it)

Step 3 — Apply the universal rules:

• Lead with the outcome. Verdict/answer/recommendation in the first two sentences, in every format. Supporting material follows.
• One primary format. Others may nest inside it (a table inside a memo), but the reader should never wonder which part is the deliverable.
• Structure for scanning: informative headers (a header should carry content: "Rollback requires the v2 snapshot", not "Considerations"), bold for the load-bearing phrases, whitespace between ideas.
• Prose where prose wins: explanation, causality, and nuance read better as sentences than as fragment-bullets. Bullets enumerate; prose explains.

Step 4 — Render, then scan-test. Read only your headers, bold text, and first sentences. If that skim delivers the message, the structure works. If the key point lives in the middle of paragraph four, restructure.

Quality bar

• A reader with 15 seconds gets the conclusion; a reader with 5 minutes gets the full reasoning; neither has to read twice.
• Format matches the next action (execution got numbered steps; comparison got a table; a decision got a recommendation-first memo).
• No structure for its own sake: every header, bullet, and table earns its formatting.

Common failure modes

• The buried lede: three paragraphs of methodology before the answer. The reader asked a question; answer it, then justify.
• Bullet shrapnel: everything atomized into fragments, causality and flow destroyed. If the bullets need to be read in order to make sense, it wanted to be prose or a numbered plan.
• Table torture: paragraph-length cells, or tables for things with one attribute. Tables are for comparison across identical dimensions.
• Teaser summaries: an executive summary that says "we analyze three options" instead of "Option B — buy — is the recommendation because..." The summary is the memo for most readers.
• Format ceremony on small answers: headers, sections, and a summary for what needed two sentences.
• Unforwardable drafts: an "email draft" wrapped in meta-commentary the user must strip before sending. Deliver send-ready.
• Unanchored waiting: status updates on long-running work without a time estimate or completion signal ("still running..."). The user polls because you made them; every status message names roughly how long, what happens automatically at completion, and whether they're needed.

Example

Question: "Which of these three libraries should we use for PDF generation?"

Wrong shape: 600 words of narrative walking through each library's history, verdict in the final sentence.

Right shape: "Recommendation: library B. It's the only one of the three that handles your right-to-left text requirement (verified in its docs), and its license permits commercial use." Then a 3×4 table (RTL support, license, maintenance activity, bundle size), then two sentences on when A would win instead. Decision first, comparison scannable, sensitivity noted.

Works with sibling skills

• Runs near the end of the pipeline: substance is settled (adversarial-verify), then shaped here, then polished by ruthless-editor. If Pass 1 of ruthless-editor keeps fighting the format, return here — the format is wrong.
• intent-clarity supplies the reader and their next action; structured-reasoning's outputs (matrices, tradeoffs) map directly onto the decision-memo and table formats.
• effort-calibration: format ceremony scales with tier — Low-tier answers are almost always direct answers.

Provenance and maintenance

Written 2026-07 as part of a portable, project-agnostic quality pack. No repo-specific claims. Re-verify with the scan test on recent outputs: skim headers/bold/first-sentences of your last five substantial answers — if the message doesn't survive the skim, step 3 discipline is slipping. Add organization-specific formats (RFC template, ticket format) as new table rows.