Writing

EDITOR RULES
- Edit; don't ghostwrite.
- Diagnose before you prescribe: say what isn't working and
  why, quoting the passage.
- Default to comments. Rewrite only when I ask, and only the
  passage I name.
- When you suggest wording, offer it as an option, keep my
  vocabulary and sentence rhythm, and change as little as
  possible.
- Never change meaning, facts, quotes, names, technical terms
  or dialect in dialogue.
- Never add claims, examples or anecdotes I didn't give you.
- Show every change so I can accept or reject it.
- Label matters of taste as taste, and errors as errors.
- Tell me what is working, briefly, so I don't cut it.

<materials>
[paste your draft]
</materials>
 
<context>
This is my own writing. I want to take it to final myself,
with an editor's critique at each pass. I'm not an editor.
Form: [form: essay | op-ed | report | short story | novel chapter]
</context>
 
<task>
Interview me the way an editor does before taking on a
manuscript. Don't edit, rewrite or assess the draft yet.
</task>
 
<requirements>
- At most 10 questions, grouped: reader and purpose; draft
  stage and worries; voice and what to preserve; style rules
  and limits.
- For each: why the answer changes the edit, and 2-3 typical
  answers I can pick from.
- Use the edit levels (developmental, line, copyedit,
  proofread), each defined in one line the first time.
</requirements>
 
<output_format>
Numbered questions under the four group headings, each
followed by "Why:" and "Typical answers:".
</output_format>
 
<process>
Ask all the questions, then stop. When I answer, restate the
brief as bullets, including which edit level the draft needs
first and why.
</process>

<materials>
[paste the brief from stage 1]
[paste your draft]
</materials>
 
<task>
Propose 2-4 materially different revision plans for this
draft, at the developmental level, and recommend one.
</task>
 
<requirements>
- First, say in two sentences what you think the piece is
  about and what it wants the reader to do or feel. If that
  doesn't match my purpose, that's the first finding.
- Plans differ in structure or argument, not wording: e.g.
  restructure around the strongest scene, narrow to one
  claim, open differently, or cut a section.
- For each: what the piece becomes, what it gains, what it
  costs (including what of mine gets cut), effort, and the
  risk to my voice.
- Base every plan on what's in the draft; add no ideas,
  anecdotes or facts.
</requirements>
 
<output_format>
The two sentences, then a table: Plan | The piece becomes |
Gains | Costs | Effort | Voice risk. Then the recommendation
in 3 sentences.
</output_format>
 
<process>
Stop after the recommendation and wait for my choice. Don't
edit anything.
</process>

<materials>
Draft: [paste]
Brief and chosen plan: [paste from stages 1-2]
Voice profile: [paste, from the voice profile prompt]
</materials>
 
<context>
Form: [form, e.g. a 1,800-word personal essay]
Reader: [reader, e.g. smart non-specialists, magazine readers]
Purpose: [purpose, e.g. make readers rethink duty to a parent]
Stage: [stage: first draft | structure settled | content final]
</context>
 
<examples>
[paste 1-2 passages of mine I consider finished, with why]
[paste 1 edit I rejected, with why, e.g. it cut a fragment]
</examples>
 
<task>
Edit the draft to carry out the chosen plan at the
[level: developmental | line | copyedit] level, so that I can
revise it in my own words.
</task>
 
<requirements>
- Diagnose before you prescribe: quote the passage and say
  why it matters to the reader.
- Developmental: an editorial letter and a reverse outline
  with keep, cut, move or expand per paragraph. Line: tracked
  suggestions only where the plan or clarity needs them,
  each as small as possible. Copyedit: to
  [style: Chicago | AP | our house style], with queries and a
  style sheet.
- For narrative: note show-don't-tell at emotional peaks and
  unplanned shifts in POV distance, where they serve the plan.
- Keep my vocabulary, rhythm, fragments and jokes; label
  taste as taste and errors as errors.
- Never change meaning, facts, quotes, names or dialect in
  dialogue; never add claims, examples or anecdotes.
- Never invent numbers, names, quotes or sources: write
  [NEEDS SOURCE] where support is missing.
- Don't return the full rewritten text.
</requirements>
 
<quality_bar>
Before answering, check your draft against:
- Every note stays at the requested level.
- Every note quotes the passage and names the effect on the
  reader.
- Every suggestion keeps meaning, hedges and numbers exactly.
- Read aloud, every suggested phrase fits the voice profile.
- The notes are ranked, biggest problem first.
</quality_bar>
 
<output_format>
1. Three things that are working, so I don't cut them.
2. The notes: editorial letter and reverse outline, or a
table: # | original | suggested | reason | taste or error.
3. Queries where my meaning is unclear, as [AQ: ...].
</output_format>
 
<process>
Ask me up to 3 questions first if anything missing would
change your answer; otherwise go on. End with a list of the
assumptions you made. I'll revise, then run the review.
</process>

<materials>
Brief: [paste]
Original draft: [paste]
My revised draft: [paste]
</materials>
 
<context>
This is a fresh chat. I revised the draft myself after an
edit. I want an editor's verdict before the next pass.
</context>
 
<task>
Critique my revised draft against the rubric below and rank
what's left to fix. Don't rewrite anything or suggest
replacement wording.
</task>
 
<requirements>
- Score 1-5, with one quoted line of evidence each: purpose
  (does it do what the brief says, for this reader);
  structure; clarity; voice (still mine, compared with the
  original); meaning preserved (every claim, hedge and
  number); nothing invented.
- Fiction or narrative: POV distance and show-don't-tell at
  the emotional peaks.
- At most 5 fixes, ranked by effect on the reader, each with
  where (quoted), what's wrong, why it matters, and the edit
  level it belongs to.
- Label taste as taste. Say what's working.
</requirements>
 
<output_format>
Score table (Criterion | Score | Evidence), the ranked fixes,
then a one-line verdict: another developmental pass, ready
for a line edit, ready for a copyedit, or ready to proofread.
</output_format>
 
<process>
End with a list of the assumptions you made.
</process>

I want to write a [form, e.g. personal essay] about
[topic, e.g. leaving my first job]. Don't write anything:
interview me one question at a time, then give my point in
one sentence. Check: quote me; add no ideas I didn't say.

<context>
Form: [form: essay | op-ed | explainer | report | memo | story]
Reader: [reader, e.g. engineers just promoted to manager]
Topic: [topic, e.g. the first 90 days as a manager]
I have opinions and experiences but no structure yet.
</context>
 
<task>
Interview me so I find what I think before I draft. Don't
write any of the piece.
</task>
 
<requirements>
- One question at a time; follow up on vague answers
  ("what's an example?", "why does that matter to the
  reader?").
- Cover: what I actually think, what I've seen first-hand,
  what the reader gets wrong, the strongest objection, what
  I want the reader to do afterward.
- Quote me; add no ideas, examples or facts I didn't give.
- Never invent numbers, names, quotes or sources: write
  [NEEDS SOURCE] where support is missing.
</requirements>
 
<quality_bar>
Before answering, check your draft against:
- The thesis is one arguable sentence, in my words where
  possible.
- The examples are ones I told you, quoted.
- The outline follows from my answers, not from a template.
</quality_bar>
 
<output_format>
After about 12 questions: my thesis in one sentence; the
three best examples I gave, quoted; the strongest objection;
an outline of 4-7 points.
</output_format>
 
<process>
Ask the first question now and wait for my answer. After the
summary, end with a list of the assumptions you made about
my reader.
</process>

Describe my voice from these samples in checkable specifics:
sentence length and variation, how I open and end paragraphs,
favorite constructions, register, humor, what I never do.
Don't praise or improve. Check: every trait has a quote.
[paste 2-5 finished pieces]

<materials>
[paste 2-5 finished pieces of mine, about 2,000 words in all]
</materials>
 
<context>
I'll paste the result into every editing prompt so that line
edits keep my voice. Main forms: [forms, e.g. essays, memos]
</context>
 
<examples>
[paste 1-2 passages of mine I'm proudest of, with why]
[paste 1 passage of mine that misses, with why, e.g. stiff]
</examples>
 
<task>
Write a voice profile: how I write, in specifics an editor
could check a sentence against.
</task>
 
<requirements>
- Sentence length and variation; paragraph length; how I
  open and end paragraphs.
- Diction and register; favorite constructions; punctuation
  habits; kinds of examples and humor; POV and tense habits.
- Things I never do.
- Describe; don't praise, improve or imitate.
- Never invent numbers, names, quotes or sources: write
  [NEEDS SOURCE] where support is missing.
- Under 250 words.
</requirements>
 
<quality_bar>
Before answering, check your draft against:
- Every trait quotes a sentence from my samples.
- Each trait is specific enough to reject an edit
  ("fragments for emphasis, about one per paragraph").
- The profile describes the passages I'm proud of more than
  the one that misses.
</quality_bar>
 
<output_format>
Short sections: Sentences, Paragraphs, Words, Habits, Never.
Then a table: trait | quoted evidence.
</output_format>
 
<process>
Ask me up to 3 questions first if anything missing would
change your answer; otherwise go on. End with a list of the
assumptions you made, including traits seen only once.
</process>

Write the strongest case against my argument, as an informed
skeptic would, in about 200 words. Then rank the 3 objections
that do most damage, each with concede, rebut or narrow.
Check: don't soften the objections. [paste argument]

<materials>
[paste the argument or the draft that makes it]
</materials>
 
<context>
Form: [form: op-ed | memo | essay | proposal | grant pitch]
Reader: [reader, e.g. a skeptical board]
</context>
 
<task>
Stress-test the argument before the reader does: map it,
steelman the other side, and rank the objections.
</task>
 
<requirements>
- Map each claim to its evidence and its warrant (Toulmin);
  flag unstated warrants and claims with no evidence.
- A steelman of the opposing case, about 200 words, that a
  smart opponent would sign.
- The 3 objections that do most damage, ranked, each with
  concede, rebut or narrow my claim, and why.
- Add no evidence of your own. Never invent numbers, names,
  quotes or sources: write [NEEDS SOURCE] where support is
  missing.
</requirements>
 
<quality_bar>
Before answering, check your draft against:
- Every objection points at a specific claim, quoted.
- The steelman uses the opponent's best case, not a weak one.
- Recommendations change the argument, not its wording.
</quality_bar>
 
<output_format>
A table: Claim | Evidence | Warrant | Gap. Then the steelman.
Then a table: Objection | Claim it hits | Damage | Concede,
rebut or narrow.
</output_format>
 
<process>
Ask me up to 3 questions first if anything missing would
change your answer; otherwise go on. End with a list of the
assumptions you made.
</process>

Line edit this passage for clarity, flow and clutter. Keep my
rhythm, fragments and word choices. Return a table: # |
original | suggested | reason; no full rewrite. Check: no
change alters meaning, hedges or numbers. [paste passage]

<materials>
Voice profile: [paste]
Passage: [paste]
</materials>
 
<context>
Form: [form, e.g. a 900-word personal essay]
Reader: [reader, e.g. smart non-specialists]
Structure is settled: don't move or cut paragraphs.
</context>
 
<examples>
[paste 1 line edit you accepted, with why]
[paste 1 edit you rejected, with why, e.g. it cut a fragment]
</examples>
 
<task>
Line edit the passage so no sentence needs a second read and
it still sounds like me.
</task>
 
<requirements>
- Find: sentences a reader would read twice; clutter ("in
  order to", "the fact that"); vague words where a specific
  one exists; logic jumps; runs of same-length sentences.
- Leave alone: [keep, e.g. fragments, the jokes, dialect]
- Each change as small as possible; label taste vs error.
- Never change meaning, facts, quotes or names; never add
  examples or feelings.
- Never invent numbers, names, quotes or sources: write
  [NEEDS SOURCE] where support is missing.
- Don't return the full rewritten text.
</requirements>
 
<quality_bar>
Before answering, check your draft against:
- Every hedge, qualifier and number survives exactly.
- Every suggestion fits the voice profile read aloud.
- No change restructures or copyedits.
- If a sentence works, it's left alone.
</quality_bar>
 
<output_format>
A table: # | original | suggested | reason | taste or error.
Then questions where you suspect I meant something other
than what I wrote.
</output_format>
 
<process>
Ask me up to 3 questions first if anything missing would
change your answer; otherwise go on. End with a list of the
assumptions you made.
</process>

This is [count, e.g. 1,400] words; I need about
[target, e.g. 1,250]. Don't rewrite: list cuts in order of
least loss, each with the exact text and words saved.
Check: every claim and my strongest examples survive.
[paste text]

<materials>
[paste the text]
</materials>
 
<context>
Form: [form, e.g. an op-ed for a regional newspaper]
Now [count, e.g. 1,400] words; target [target, e.g. 1,250]
Limit: [limit: hard cap | soft target | shortest that stays clear]
</context>
 
<task>
List the cuts that bring the piece to length with the least
loss. Don't rewrite anything.
</task>
 
<requirements>
- Cut in this order: redundant sentences, throat-clearing,
  doubled examples, qualifiers that add nothing (not honest
  hedges), clutter phrases.
- Keep every claim, my strongest examples and any setup a
  later payoff needs.
- Never invent numbers, names, quotes or sources: write
  [NEEDS SOURCE] where support is missing.
</requirements>
 
<quality_bar>
Before answering, check your draft against:
- The cuts add up to the target.
- No cut removes a claim or an honest hedge.
- The through-line survives: every section still serves the
  main point.
</quality_bar>
 
<output_format>
A table: # | delete (exact text) | words saved | why it's
safe, with a running total.
</output_format>
 
<process>
Ask me up to 3 questions first if anything missing would
change your answer; otherwise go on. End with a list of the
assumptions you made.
</process>

Copyedit to [style: Chicago | AP | our house style], American
spelling: spelling, grammar, punctuation, usage, consistency.
Mark changes ~~old~~ **new**; query where it depends on my
intent. Check: no quote or style choice is changed.
[paste text]

<materials>
Text: [paste]
House rules: [paste, if any]
Spelled that way on purpose: [paste names and terms]
</materials>
 
<context>
Form: [form, e.g. a 6,000-word report for a nonprofit board]
Content is final; only correctness and consistency are left.
</context>
 
<examples>
[paste a style sheet page you liked, with why]
</examples>
 
<task>
Copyedit the text to [style: Chicago | AP | our house style],
American spelling, and build its style sheet.
</task>
 
<requirements>
- Fix spelling, grammar, punctuation, usage, and consistency
  of names, terms, numbers, capitalization and hyphenation.
- Don't change style, voice, word choice or sentence
  structure unless it is an error; never change quoted
  material or the intentional spellings.
- Where a fix depends on my intent, query as [AQ: ...]
  instead of changing.
- Never invent numbers, names, quotes or sources: write
  [NEEDS SOURCE] where support is missing.
</requirements>
 
<quality_bar>
Before answering, check your draft against:
- Every change is an error under the named style, not taste.
- Names, numbers and hyphenation are consistent from first
  page to last.
- Every query is a real ambiguity.
</quality_bar>
 
<output_format>
The text with changes inline as ~~old~~ **new**; the queries
as a numbered list; the style sheet: names and terms as
spelled, number style, hyphenations, rules applied.
</output_format>
 
<process>
Ask me up to 3 questions first if anything missing would
change your answer; otherwise go on. End with a list of the
assumptions you made.
</process>

Proofread this final text. List only clear errors: typos,
missing or doubled words, wrong homophones, punctuation,
inconsistent formatting. For each: location, error, fix.
Check: no style suggestions. [paste text]

<materials>
Text: [paste the final text]
Spelled that way on purpose: [paste names and terms]
</materials>
 
<context>
Format: [format: print PDF | web page | slide deck | email]
Everything else is approved; this is the last pass.
</context>
 
<task>
Proofread the text and list every clear error.
</task>
 
<requirements>
- Errors only: typos, missing or doubled words, wrong
  homophones, punctuation, inconsistent formatting, broken
  numbering or cross-references.
- No style suggestions; rewrite nothing; leave the
  intentional spellings alone.
- If a section has no errors, say so.
- Never invent numbers, names, quotes or sources: write
  [NEEDS SOURCE] where support is missing.
</requirements>
 
<quality_bar>
Before answering, check your draft against:
- Every entry is an error, not a preference.
- Every location quotes enough words to find it.
- Every section is accounted for.
</quality_bar>
 
<output_format>
A table: # | location (a few surrounding words) | error |
fix.
</output_format>
 
<process>
End with a list of the assumptions you made, such as
spellings you weren't sure were deliberate.
</process>

Critique this scene without rewriting: goal, conflict and
outcome; POV slips and psychic-distance jumps; telling at
emotional peaks; subtext said aloud. Then the one fix that
matters most, described. Check: quote every line you cite.
[paste scene]

<materials>
[paste the scene or chapter]
</materials>
 
<context>
Genre: [genre, e.g. literary thriller]
POV: [POV: first | close third | distant third | omniscient]
Tense: [tense: past | present]
Want in this scene: [want, e.g. leave before her brother comes]
Placement: [placement, e.g. end of act 1, after the funeral]
</context>
 
<examples>
[paste a short published scene that works, with why]
</examples>
 
<task>
Critique the scene so I know what to fix and why. Don't
write replacement lines.
</task>
 
<requirements>
- Scene (Swain): goal, conflict, disaster; does anything
  change by the end?
- POV: head-hopping, knowledge the POV character couldn't
  have, tense slips outside dialogue.
- Psychic distance (Gardner): where it shifts, and whether
  it suits the moment.
- Show-don't-tell: telling at emotional peaks only, quoted;
  summary and transitions are fine.
- Dialogue: subtext said aloud, "as you know, Bob", voices
  that sound alike; filter words.
- Tension: the line where attention would drift.
- Never invent numbers, names, quotes or sources: write
  [NEEDS SOURCE] where support is missing.
</requirements>
 
<quality_bar>
Before answering, check your draft against:
- Every finding quotes the line.
- Notes diagnose; none supplies new wording.
- The top fix is about the scene's turn, unless the turn
  already works.
- Taste is labeled as taste.
</quality_bar>
 
<output_format>
A table: # | quote | issue | why it matters to the reader.
Then the single most important fix, described in 2-3
sentences.
</output_format>
 
<process>
Ask me up to 3 questions first if anything missing would
change your answer; otherwise go on. End with a list of the
assumptions you made about the story outside this scene.
</process>

Make this better.
[pastes a 900-word personal essay]

<materials>
[paste the essay]
</materials>
 
<context>
A 900-word personal essay for a general-interest magazine;
readers are smart non-specialists. Structure is settled:
don't move or cut paragraphs. My voice: short declarative
sentences broken by long ones; dry understatement; fragments
for emphasis; no exclamation marks.
</context>
 
<task>
Line edit the essay so no sentence needs a second read,
keeping my voice.
</task>
 
<requirements>
- Find: sentences a reader would read twice, clutter, vague
  words where a specific one exists, logic jumps.
- Keep the fragments, the understatement and every hedge.
- Add no facts, examples or feelings. Never invent numbers,
  names, quotes or sources: write [NEEDS SOURCE] where
  support is missing.
- Each change as small as possible; label taste vs error.
- Don't return the full text.
</requirements>
 
<quality_bar>
Before answering, check your draft against:
- Every hedge, qualifier and number survives exactly.
- Each suggestion sounds like the voice described above.
- No change restructures or adds content.
</quality_bar>
 
<output_format>
A table: # | original | suggested | reason | taste or error.
Then three things that are working.
</output_format>
 
<process>
Ask me up to 3 questions first if anything missing would
change your answer; otherwise go on. End with a list of the
assumptions you made.
</process>

1. "In order to understand why I left" -> "To understand why
   I left". Clutter. Error.
2. "She was, in a way, sort of the reason." -> "She was, in
   a way, the reason." Doubled hedge; keeps "in a way".
   Taste.
3. "Gone. All of it." No change: the fragment lands the
   paragraph.
4. "I may have been wrong about him." -> "I was wrong about
   him." Hedging weakens the turn. Taste.
5. "the day of the thing with the car" -> "the day of the
   accident". Vague noun. Taste.
...
Working: the opening image of the kitchen; the restraint in
paragraph 6; the last line, which doesn't explain itself.
Assumptions: "him" in paragraph 4 is the father; the essay
is in past tense throughout on purpose.

Stet #4: "may have" is deliberate; the essay turns on not
knowing. Before you continue, list any other suggestion that
changes certainty, emphasis or a hedge, quoting original and
suggestion. Then continue the line edit from paragraph 5
with the same rules, and don't re-suggest #4.

Below are an ORIGINAL and an EDITED version. List every
claim, number, qualifier and hedge in the original, and say
whether the edit keeps it exactly, weakens it, strengthens it
or drops it, quoting both. Then list anything in the edit
that isn't in the original.
ORIGINAL: [paste]
EDITED: [paste]

Be harsher. Assume this draft will be rejected. What is the
most likely reason an editor at
[publication, e.g. the magazine you're pitching] would give?
Quote the passages that would cause it.

Read this as [reader, e.g. a smart 16-year-old] who knows
nothing about [topic, e.g. index funds]. Paragraph by
paragraph: what you understood, the first word or step you
didn't, and the question you'd ask. Don't explain or fix.
[paste text]

Which of your suggestions are matters of taste rather than
clarity or correctness? Remove those and show me what's left.