human-writing-style

What this skill does

# Human Writing Style

## Overview

This skill produces writing that matches Triet's personal voice, tone, and patterns. It uses an extracted style profile built from 20 real writing samples across essays, legal analysis, advocacy letters, technical documentation, project reports, peer evaluations, science journalism, annotated bibliographies, and discussion posts.

## When to Use This Skill

- Generating any written content (essays, legal arguments, discussion posts, reports)
- Rewriting existing content to match Triet's voice
- User asks for "natural", "human", "my style", or "write like me"
- Content feels generic, robotic, or doesn't sound like Triet after a first pass

## Workflow

### Step 1: Load the Style Profile

Read `triet-writing-profile.md` in this skill's directory. This is the primary reference containing all extracted patterns, signature words, sentence structures, and real examples organized by category.

### Step 2: Identify the Genre

Determine what type of content is being written, then calibrate register:

| Genre | Register | Key Profile Sections |
|-------|----------|---------------------|
| Academic essay | Reflective, opinionated, conversational. Uses "I" freely. | Sections 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 |
| Technical essay | Explanatory, casual grounders ("basically", "pretty complex"). | Sections 4, 5, 6, 12 |
| Legal analysis | Assertive, methodical, evidence-heavy. "We will argue" team voice. | Sections 2, 3, 5, 8, 9 |
| Discussion post / peer response | Warm validation first, then own analysis, then confirmation. | Section 1 (Peer discussion mode), Section 3 (Dual-framework validation) |
| Advocacy / formal letter | Formal, respectful, research-backed. Personal credibility early. | Sections 2, 9, 12 |
| Research / process write-up | Descriptive, chronological, honest about learning curve. | Section 8 (Process narration) |
| Cross-examination / tactical | Direct, parenthetical strategy notes. | Section 2 (Tone by context) |
| Project report / reflection | Sprint-by-sprint narration, lessons-learned, future recommendations. | Sections 8, 12 |
| Peer evaluation | Blunt, evidence-based, grade-justified. No padding. | Sections 1, 12 |
| Product pitch / requirements | Gap identification, feature lists, priority frameworks. | Sections 3, 12 |
| Annotated bibliography | Source-then-explain, "I chose this source because...", synthesis evolution. | Sections 9, 12 |
| Science journalism | "Imagine..." hooks, technical-to-accessible translation, analogy-heavy. | Sections 7, 12 |
| Quiz / exam responses | Conversational-academic blend, concept explanation as if to a peer. | Sections 1, 6 |
| Issue / audience analysis | Controversy framing, audience profiling, explicit rhetorical strategy. | Sections 3, 7, 9, 12 |
| Technical documentation | Feature lists, priority frameworks, technology justifications. | Sections 8, 12 |
| Company report / deliverable | Impersonal or "we" voice (not "I"), findings-first, recommendation-close. Use Triet's transitions and sentence patterns but suppress first-person opinions. | Sections 4, 5, 8, 12 |

### Step 3: Genre-Specific Deep Dive (Optional)

If the profile doesn't provide enough depth for the specific genre, check `source-index.md` in this directory. It maps each genre to original source files that can be read for deeper immersion in that register.

### Step 4: Write Using These Rules

#### Voice
- Default to confident-casual. Opinionated but fair.
- Use "I believe" / "My opinion is" without apology.
- Use "definitely" naturally (Triet's most frequent intensifier).
- Use "Effectively" as a summative transition.
- Use "Given that" as a logical pivot.

#### Structure
- Open paragraphs with context/framing before the argument.
- Follow: Context > Claim > Evidence > Concession > Rebuttal > Reinforcement.
- When using ethical/legal frameworks, apply dual-framework validation (if two frameworks agree, the conclusion is confirmed).
- Close with a strong, concise statement.

#### Sentences
- Favor medium-long compound-complex sentences.
- Use parenthetical asides for precision: "which is one of the most critical tasks".
- End buildup sequences with a short punchy closer.
- Use dash-separated elaboration: "things like X, Y, and Z".

#### Transitions
- Heavy logical connectors: "Furthermore", "However", "Therefore", "In addition to".
- "Effectively" to summarize. "Whereas" for parallel contrast.
- "This then leads to..." for cascading consequences.
- "To reiterate..." / "Essentially, it all comes down to..." for summation.

#### Signature Phrases (Use Naturally, Don't Force)
- "definitely" — sprinkle where emphasis is needed
- "basically" — to ground technical explanations casually
- "pretty [adj]" — casual downtoner in technical contexts ("pretty complex")
- "This directly [verb]..." — for impact claims
- "What's [adjective] here is..." — to highlight key points
- "What makes X [adj] is..." — to emphasize uniqueness
- "The fact is..." — to anchor a core claim
- "rather than" — to reframe alternatives
- "Overall, I..." — for reflective closers
- "Looking back at..." — for retrospective openings
- "In addition with..." — unique quirk (not "In addition to")

#### Authentic Markers (Preserve, Don't "Fix")
- Occasional "Which" fragments after periods
- "meanwhile" as a mid-sentence pivot
- "as to whether" constructions
- "In addition with" instead of "In addition to"
- "softwares" as plural
- "along with" gerund chains ("along with documenting...")
- Stacked positive adjectives in peer contexts ("very interesting and quite relatable")

### Step 5: Self-Audit (Mandatory)

After writing, check EVERY item before outputting. If any fails, fix it.

| Check | Pass? |
|-------|-------|
| Does "definitely" appear at least once (if 500+ words)? | |
| Are there any one-sentence paragraphs? If yes, merge or expand them. | |
| Does every paragraph have 2+ sentences? | |
| Count signature markers — is density below 1 per 100 words? | |
| Scan for banned words and AI anti-patterns (Section 13 of profile). | |
| Does the opening avoid "Let's explore" / "In this essay"? | |
| Does the closing avoid "In summary" / "To wrap up"? | |
| Are there any rhetorical setups like "The question is..." followed by a one-line answer? Remove them. | |
| Read the first sentence of each paragraph — do they sound like press releases? Rewrite. | |

## Anti-Patterns (Never Do This)

These phrases are ABSENT from all 20 of Triet's writing samples. If they appear in output, it doesn't sound like Triet:

- "Let's dive into..." / "Let's explore..." / "Let's break down..."
- "It's worth noting..." / "It is worth noting..."
- "In summary" (use "In conclusion" or "Overall" instead)
- "This is because" as a sentence opener
- "In other words" / "That being said" / "That said" / "On the other hand"
- "Notably" as a sentence opener / "It should be noted"
- One-sentence dramatic paragraphs — Triet never does this. Examples of violations to catch:
  - `"The answer is yes."` as its own paragraph
  - `"This is the opening."` as its own paragraph
  - `"And that changes everything."` as its own paragraph
  - **Fix:** Merge into the surrounding paragraph or expand to 2+ sentences.
- Rhetorical question-answer setups: `"The question becomes whether..."` followed by `"The answer is [yes/no]."` — Triet states conclusions directly without theatrical buildup.
- Em-dashes for dramatic pauses (Triet uses dashes for elaboration lists, not drama)
- "Here's what stood out most:" / "Here's the thing:" — generic conversational filler absent from Triet's writing
- Excessive passive voice (Triet defaults to active with "I" and named subjects)

## Paragraph Structure

- Default paragraph: **3-5 sentences** (essays/legal), **2-3 sentences** (discussion posts), **2-4 sentences** (reports/letters)
- One-sentence paragraphs are extremely rare (< 5%). Never for dramatic emphasis.
- Introduction paragraphs tend longer (4-5 sentences). Body paragraphs 3-4.
- Open documents with **broad contextual