# Better Usage

> Diagnose and repair semantically mismatched word combinations while preserving the intended claim. Use when prose is grammatical but a verb does not literally fit its subject or object, a claim or section is given an action it cannot perform, an abstract relation is hidden by vague personification, an abstract process hides the actor or implies a review that the source does not establish, or repl…

- **Type:** Skill
- **Install:** `agentstack add skill-msimchowitz-writing-skills-better-usage`
- **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior
- **Seller:** [msimchowitz](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/msimchowitz)
- **Installs:** 0
- **Category:** [Agent Skills](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/agent-skills)
- **Latest version:** 0.1.0
- **License:** MIT
- **Upstream author:** [msimchowitz](https://github.com/msimchowitz)
- **Source:** https://github.com/msimchowitz/writing-skills/tree/main/for-agents/better-usage

## Install

```sh
agentstack add skill-msimchowitz-writing-skills-better-usage
```

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

## About

# Better Usage

Choose words that express the relation the sentence actually asserts. A
sentence can be grammatical and still sound wrong because its subject cannot
perform the named action, its object or complement does not fit the relation
expressed by the verb, or an important intermediate has been omitted.

For a full semantic-usage pass, read
[compatibility-examples.md](references/compatibility-examples.md). Treat the
examples as a curated diagnostic set, not a substitution dictionary.

## Recover The Intended Relation

1. Identify the grammatical subject, main verb, and object or complement.
2. Paraphrase the intended relation without reusing the suspect verb.
3. Ask whether the subject can literally perform that action in this domain
   and whether the verb can take that object or complement with the intended
   meaning.
4. Distinguish an accidental mismatch from accepted technical shorthand or a
   deliberate metaphor that clarifies the idea.
5. Preserve the claim, uncertainty, and domain terminology while repairing the
   relation.
6. Check whether the sentence implies a review, analysis, or evaluation that
   the source never established.

Do not stop after finding a more specific verb. A new verb can remain
semantically loose.

## Name A Missing Intermediate

When the subject and verb do not connect directly, identify the omitted link.
Useful questions include:

- What entity actually acts?
- What property, extent, interpretation, or consequence changes?
- Under which conditions does the relation hold?
- Who performs the inference or needs the information?

For example, a claim does not stop, and saying that conditions "limit the
claim" still leaves the affected dimension unnamed. Write "the conditions
limit the extent of the claim" or state that "the claim applies only under
these conditions." If the intended question concerns implications rather than
validity, ask where the consequences of the theorem end.

Insert an intermediate only when it names a real part of the relation. Do not
pile up abstract nouns merely to make the sentence sound exact.

## Respect Conventional Agency

Keep established scholarly shorthand when it is clear in context. A theorem
may state or imply a result, evidence may support a claim, a figure may show a
measurement, and an algorithm may choose an action. These verbs have stable
technical meanings.

Recast the sentence when the shorthand hides a distinction that matters. For
example, "the evidence explains the effect" may collapse two relations: the
evidence supports an explanation, while the authors or analysis provide it.

## Check The Repair

- Confirm that the revised subject can perform the verb.
- Confirm that the object or complement fits the relation expressed by the
  verb.
- Confirm that any intermediate noun identifies a necessary relation rather
  than adding nominal clutter.
- Recheck epistemic force. Do not turn support into proof or correlation into
  explanation.
- Remove an implied review or evaluation when the source states only a
  contrast between properties.
- Compare with the source to ensure that the repair adds no fact, mechanism,
  condition, or conclusion.
- Do not add procedural detail, sequence, or emphasis merely to replace a
  metaphor. A semantic repair does not license unsupported texture such as
  "step by step."

## Invocation Boundary

When another writing skill invokes this skill, return only the revised prose
or the requested usage findings. Do not invoke Humanizer, general-writing, or
the writing-cadence or academic-voice skills; the calling skill owns the larger
prose pipeline.

## Source & license

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

- **Author:** [msimchowitz](https://github.com/msimchowitz)
- **Source:** [msimchowitz/writing-skills](https://github.com/msimchowitz/writing-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-msimchowitz-writing-skills-better-usage
- Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/msimchowitz
- 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%.