Longread

Longread Writer

A pipeline for analytical writing. Structure first, facts second, voice third, self-critique last. Works for any subject — adapt the sources to the domain.

Output formats

| Format | Length | Where it goes | |--------|--------|---------------| | Short expert post | 300–600 words | social / a channel | | Longform post | 800–1500 words | blog / newsletter | | Deep analytical breakdown | 1500–3000 words | a standalone piece | | Case study | 1000–2000 words | portfolio / blog |

Pipeline (4 phases)

Phase 1 — Cheap: angle & structure (don't write yet)

1. Clarify if unclear: format? audience? any data/insights that must be included?
2. State the central thesis in one sentence — what the reader walks away with.
3. Propose a structure (3–5 blocks):

`` Hook: [a provocative fact / question / contradiction] Block 1: [name] Block 2: [name] … Conclusion / CTA: [what the reader should do] ``

1. Show the structure and confirm before Phase 2.

Phase 2 — Research: gather facts

Without specifics, the text is empty. For each block:

• Find 1–2 key facts/figures.
• Find 1 concrete example or case.
• Note the source (URL / dataset / first-hand).

Verification rule: every concrete number needs a source. Can't find one → write [need figure] and move on. Never invent a number.

Phase 3 — Write: section by section

Write in a plain, conversational voice, not an academic one.

• 2–4 sentences per thought, no more.
• Concrete: numbers, names, dates — not "many", "often", "significantly".
• No filler openers ("It should be noted that…", "Thus…").
• No AI-aesthetic ("In conclusion, it is worth noting…").

Each block's shape:

Claim (1 sentence — the block's point)
Evidence (fact / figure / example)
Why it matters
[transition to the next block]

Write the hook last (once you know what actually grabs after the body is done). Write section by section; show intermediate drafts if approval is useful.

Phase 4 — Devil's advocate: pre-publish check

Ask yourself 5 questions:

1. "What if I'm wrong?" — is there a counterargument to the thesis? How do you handle it?
2. "Where do I generalize without data?" — find "many", "as a rule", "obviously" — replace with specifics or cut.
3. "What won't the reader get?" — any terms unexplained for a non-specialist?
4. "What's stale?" — any data that may be outdated (>6 months)?
5. "Why read to the end?" — is there an interest dip in the middle?

Make targeted edits, don't rewrite everything.

Final

• Title (for a post — first line as a bold headline).
• The text in the chosen format.
• If relevant: a note on what illustration/image type fits.

Anti-patterns

• ❌ Writing without a structure — always Phase 1 first.
• ❌ Facts without a source — better [need figure] than an invented number.
• ❌ Academic style ("this work is dedicated to…").
• ❌ A longread of generalities — if there's no concrete data, say so before writing.
• ❌ Skipping the devil's-advocate pass — that's where the weak spots are.

Examples of a strong hook

• "A prediction market paid traders $2.3M in one day. Half of it went to 12 wallets."
• "Everyone knows BTC correlates with macro. Nobody says how much — by timeframe it runs from 0.1 to 0.9."
• A specific number + a specific stake beats any abstract claim.

Source & license

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

• Author: Sanexxxx777
• Source: Sanexxxx777/curated-claude-code
• License: MIT
• Homepage: https://shulgin.is-a.dev

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