# Writing Axes

> Audience-and-goal-first drafting, review, and rewriting for any human-facing prose. Use whenever the user asks to write, rewrite, draft, critique, review, or edit a document, including blog posts, READMEs, papers, emails, docs, runbooks, error messages, release notes, incident reports, announcements, and forum posts. Also use when asked for a title, headline, or subject line, or to check somethin…

- **Type:** Skill
- **Install:** `agentstack add skill-matt-w-horn-skills-writing-axes`
- **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior
- **Seller:** [matt-w-horn](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/matt-w-horn)
- **Installs:** 0
- **Category:** [AI & ML](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/ai-and-ml)
- **Latest version:** 0.1.0
- **License:** MIT
- **Upstream author:** [matt-w-horn](https://github.com/matt-w-horn)
- **Source:** https://github.com/matt-w-horn/skills/tree/main/skills/writing-axes

## Install

```sh
agentstack add skill-matt-w-horn-skills-writing-axes
```

Requires the [AgentStack CLI](https://agentstack.voostack.com/docs/cli). Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any MCP-compatible agent.

## About

# Writing axes

Every document serves one reader making one decision. Route any writing or review task through four gates: reader, goal, axis, and whether to write at all. Then apply the rules for the axis in play.

Axis rules live in `references/`. The verified source library behind them lives in `references/sources/`. Cite sources from those files, never from memory.

## The four gates

Run them in order. Each answer constrains the next.

### Gate 1: who is the reader?

One person, at one moment. Resolve five things:

- What they already know. This sets the vocabulary and what can go unexplained.
- What they are about to do. This sets what the text must equip them for.
- What they are deciding. This produces the axis (Gate 3).
- Who else will see it. Email gets forwarded, papers get excerpted into review notes, READMEs get skimmed by people the author never pictured. Design for the furthest plausible reader.
- Their relationship to the writer, and whether this text changes it.

"Developers", "the community", "readers" are categories, not readers. If the conversation does not pin a person, infer the most likely one, state the assumption in one line, and proceed. Ask only when two plausible readers would produce two different documents.

**Published venues: the title selects the reader.** When the document goes to a public venue, the reader is not given in advance. The title determines which population arrives, and that population determines which axis the responses run on. A title that advertises the output recruits readers who judge outputs; one that advertises the mechanism recruits readers who judge mechanisms. Draft the title last, from the finished body, and test it with two questions: who does this recruit, and what will they argue about? If the recruited argument is not the one the writer wants, the title is wrong even when it is accurate. The same holds for subject lines, repository descriptions, and any other text that decides whether the body gets opened. Title drafting and the pre-publication check in `references/reception.md` run at the same moment and constrain each other.

### Gate 2: what is the goal?

State the goal as a change in the reader, never as a property of the text. "Explain the gate system" is a property. "Get one maintainer to fork the template and report which gate fires first" is a goal. The test: if the goal is met, what does the reader do or believe that they otherwise would not? No answer means no drafting yet.

### Gate 3: which axis?

| Axis | The reader is deciding | Signature failure |
|---|---|---|
| Argument | whether to believe or act on a claim | nothing in it could be wrong |
| Instruction | nothing, they are executing | stuck at a choice the text left open |
| Orientation | whether this thing is for them | they cannot picture using it |
| Standing | something about the writer | the writer reads as excusing themself |

Open `references/axes.md` before drafting or judging. All four axes live in that one file, with the conflict table and the diagnosis step. Most documents run on more than one axis, and the collisions are only visible with all four in view. The governing axis still sets the rules; the others tell you what the document is doing where it drifts.

**Plain-language register.** On Instruction, and on Orientation for technical material, open `references/plain-language.md` alongside the axis file. It carries the sentence budgets and their counting convention, the modal ladder, the term rotations, and the slop substitutions: the register decisions the axis file assumes but does not set. Do not open it on Standing, or on Argument where persuasion is the point. Its rules delete persuasion by design. That is why it governs the docs a launch post links to, and never the launch post.

### Gate 4: mix, split, or don't write

**Mix** when one axis is primary and the others appear as marked sections following their own rules locally. Conflicts resolve to the primary (listed in `references/axes.md`).

**Split** into separate documents when two axes need different readers or different orderings. Signals: no first sentence serves both; the ordering that suits one buries the other; the draft explains why a thing is built before saying what it is.

**Don't write** is a legitimate outcome. Say it plainly when:

- Something that already exists meets the goal. Write a pointer instead.
- The decision the text depends on has not been made. Text hardens ambiguity; it cannot resolve it.
- The axis is Argument and no claim exists yet that a knowledgeable reader could reject.
- The axis is Standing and the content needs tone, follow-up questions, or deniability. That is a conversation, not a document.
- The axis is Standing and the content carries legal or professional exposure the writer has not decided about. Flag the exposure once, name its class, and stop.

**Axis conflicts** resolve to the primary axis. The five recurring collisions are listed at the end of `references/axes.md`, next to the axes they collide between.

## Universal rules

These apply on every axis, on top of the axis file.

### Reader modeling

1. Hold the one reader from Gate 1 through every sentence. Every fork left open costs more than any sentence-level defect: two audiences, two venues, the recipient versus whoever they forward to.
2. Given-new: open each sentence with what the reader already holds; end it with the new thing to emphasize. The end of a sentence carries stress whether or not it was planned.
3. Every sentence performs an act: assert, concede, request, orient, hedge. A sentence performing no act gets cut. Two sentences performing the same act: one gets cut.
4. The curse of knowledge is not introspectable. When stakes justify it, the fix is a real reader who does not know the material, watched for where they stop.

### Placement

5. Placement is a claim about importance. The strongest, most-the-writer's-own material sitting at 80% of a document says it does not matter, and readers hear that claim. In venues where readers reply, the opening does more: it sets the subject of the replies, not only the emphasis. An opening about motivation gets a thread about motivation; an opening about mechanism gets a thread about mechanism. Open on what the writer wants discussed.
6. Distribute payoffs; do not save them. Readers abandon dry stretches before reaching a hoarded reward.
7. Sentences, paragraphs, sections, and documents all carry their emphasis at the end. Put the strongest material there.

### Precision

8. One term, one concept, for the whole document set. This covers prose vocabulary, coined terms, symbols, and the names a thing goes by. A second word for the same concept sends readers hunting for a second meaning.
9. Every checkable number gets a source or gets cut. A number a reader can verify is an invitation; failing that check costs more than omitting the number.
10. Never present reconstructed wording as a quote. Paraphrase is labeled as paraphrase, including paraphrases of the writer's own earlier drafts.
11. State requirements, deadlines, and consequences literally, with the number and the name attached.

### Self-monitoring: the through-line failure class

12. Cut cognition-narration: "I've been thinking", "I keep wondering", "I should say". The document is the evidence that thinking happened.
13. Cut pre-emptive concession and disclaimed qualifications. Ethos is built by demonstrated judgment inside the text, not imported from credentials or subtracted by disclaimers.
14. Hedges are a budget, not a courtesy. Attach the qualifier and the rebuttal condition to the specific claim that needs them, then stop hedging the surrounding prose. Ambient uncertainty makes the reader evaluate the writer's confidence instead of the claim.
15. Reassurance said twice is anxiety about the thing being reassured, and readers hear the anxiety before the content. Once is information.

### Sound

16. Vary construction, not just length. When one syntactic frame carries most of the emphatic moments, the prose reads as machine-made regardless of word choice. Frames to count: "X rather than Y", "X, not Y", balanced antithesis couplets, short aphorisms as paragraph-enders, three- and four-item lists without conjunctions, em-dash interruptions. Run this late, because revision is what introduces the tic. The hunting procedure is `references/tells.md`.
17. Register consistency. A casual opening plus uniformly formal negation reads as style transfer. Contraction rate must match the register and stay stable within it.
18. Answer rhetorical questions or cut them. A stack of questions performs seriousness without paying for it.
19. Do not announce enumeration where the list itself would do the work.
20. Hunt prefabricated phrases, the ready-made sequence that assembles itself without thought: stock catastrophe lists, stock stakes paragraphs, stock transitions.

### Ownership: hard rules

21. The voice belongs to the author. Operating on someone's draft is translation, not rewriting.
22. Changes to what a text claims are kicked back to the writer, never made silently.
23. On the Standing axis, three calls are always the writer's: what to disclose, what characterization to accept about anyone not in the room, and what tone to take toward them. Surface the call with a recommendation, then execute what they choose.

## Workflow

**Drafting:** run the gates, open the axis file, draft, then run the review path below on the draft before delivering it.

**Reviewing** (a user's draft or a fresh one):

1. Run `scripts/style_scan.py` on the prose. It handles markdown, HTML, and LaTeX, and computes only standard, format-robust measures: readability grades (Flesch, FK, Coleman-Liau), sentence-length variance, contraction rate, and repeated word, bigram, and trigram tables. Its one flag is flat sentence rhythm. Then open `references/tells.md` and run the reading procedure on the scanner's output. The tells that matter most are syntactic shapes with open lexical slots: negative parallelism, frame repetition, aphorism cadence, register breaks. No pattern matcher catches them.
2. One holistic pass with the whole document in context: the axis check, claim-exists, a placement map of where the best material sits, the hedge budget, question order, the forward test. These findings cannot be produced any other way, and they outrank everything the scan returns. Several are exactly the findings that vanish if the document is read in slices.
3. Optional, for high-stakes documents: fan out reader lenses as parallel subagents, meaning the named reader from Gate 1, a naive reader, and a hostile expert. Each receives the whole document and returns three things: where they stopped, what they would reject, what they needed that was not there. Consolidate in a single pass; several findings are often one pattern.
4. Report by severity, whole-document findings before span findings. End with what to keep. A review that lists only defects miscalibrates the writer; the strongest lines are load-bearing information about the writer's range.

When what is under review is a diff or a finished bulk edit rather than a fresh draft, run `references/meaning-gate.md` before anything else. Its defect classes survive the scanner and the tells procedure untouched, because the rewritten text reads better than what it replaced.

**Publishing** (before anything goes to a public venue where readers respond):

Run `references/reception.md`. The review pass stress-tests the claims. The reception check forecasts the responses that are not about the claims: the topic's inherited debates, externalities, contested vocabulary, genre, the writer, and open basic questions. In open venues that is most of the thread. Its output is a list of predicted readings, each tagged fold, prepare, or accept, with any folds executed under the hedge budget. It runs together with title drafting (Gate 1).

**Rewriting in place** (a batch pass over files the user names, the "de-AI" or "de-slop" request):

1. Resolve the target set first. Default to `content/posts/*.md` only when the user names no path.
2. Dispatch one subagent per file, model opus. Each prompt MUST begin: "Invoke the writing-axes skill before touching the file, then REWRITE  in place against its axes. Fix, don't report." Subagents inherit nothing from this session, so the prompt is everything they get.
3. Cover title, headers, and body. Do not change a title unless the title is itself a tell; flag those and wait.
4. Preserve load-bearing lines, meaning openers and canonical formulations, verbatim. When an axis fires on one, flag it rather than rewriting it. This is rule 21 operating at batch scale: the voice belongs to the author, and a batch pass is where it gets flattened.
5. Forbid em-dashes, contrast frames ("not X, it's Y"), hype adjectives, and hedging openers. Rule 16 and `references/tells.md` carry the rest of the hunt. Do not substitute a private notion of good prose for the axes.
6. After the agents return, run the meaning gate over the combined diff: `references/meaning-gate.md`, reading each changed sentence as a pair, old against new. This is not optional on a batch pass. A fluent rewrite and a faithful rewrite are different properties. Every defect class it lists reads as an improvement, and a sweep that reads only the new text cannot detect any of them.
7. Then run the hostile-reader lens over the combined diff in one pass. Findings that are really one pattern are only visible here.
8. Report a table of file, tells removed, lines changed, and meaning flags raised. Then stop and wait for approval before committing.

## Sources

The rules above compress a verified source library. Item numbers are stable IDs from the verification report of 2026-08-04, so they run non-sequentially within a file. `references/sources/flags-and-policy.md` defines the tags an entry heading can carry and what each one asks you to check.

| Open | For |
|---|---|
| references/sources/craft-sentence.md | sentence mechanics: given-new, rhythm exercises, sentence-length variance, knowing what a sentence says, Orwell's checklist (items 1, 2, 3, 18, 31) |
| references/sources/craft-structure.md | leads, structure from material, one ping, C-C-C, gold coins, the spiral method, notation discipline, OCAR, SCQA (items 7, 13, 14, 17, 23, 25, 32, 33) |
| references/sources/rhetoric.md | stance, ethos, argument anatomy, perspective by incongruity, value-to-readers, credibility devices, hedging research, stasis, speech acts (items 4, 5, 6, 15, 16, 24, 28, 30, 36) |
| references/sources/reader-research.md | curse of knowledge, scanning patterns, trunk test, content-as-conversation, documentation modes, progressive disclosure (items 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 29) |
| references/sources/standing-social.md | excuses vs. justifications, stealing thunder, inoculation, covering, BLUF, attention-outward acting technique (items 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 35) |
| references/sources/flags-and-policy.md | the report's scope note and corrections summary, plus the current ACM AI-disclosure policy (item 34) |

Citation discipline:

- Before naming any source in output, open `references/sources/flags-and-policy.md`. Several common attributions are wrong, apocryphal, or superseded, and its corrections list is the fastest check.
- Quote only wording a sources file marks **Verbatim**. Everything else is presented as a summary and labeled as one.
- When a rule leans on a specific source, the axis file's Sources section says which file and item to open. Follow the pointer before asserting what the source says.

## Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

- **Author:** [matt-w-horn](https://github.com/matt-w-horn)
- **Source:** [matt-w-horn/skills](https://github.com/matt-w-horn/skills)
- **License:** MIT

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.

## Pricing

- **Free** — Free

## Security capabilities

Automated source analysis of v0.1.0 — what this tool can access:

- **Network access:** no
- **Filesystem access:** no
- **Shell / process execution:** no
- **Environment & secrets:** no
- **Dynamic code execution:** no

*"Yes" means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it is unsafe.*


## Versions

- **0.1.0** — security scan: passed — Imported from the upstream source.

## Links

- Listing page: https://agentstack.voostack.com/l/skill-matt-w-horn-skills-writing-axes
- Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/matt-w-horn
- Browse the marketplace: https://agentstack.voostack.com/browse

---
Listed on AgentStack — the marketplace for AI agent skills and MCP servers. Every listing is security-reviewed. Creators keep 70%.