Writeup

Core Purpose

Transform work sessions into publishable content. Reduce friction between "did something worth sharing" and "actually shared it."

Invocation

/writeup — Skill assesses work and recommends format /writeup as a tweet — Hints toward quick capture format /writeup as a thread — Hints toward Twitter thread format /writeup for the blog — Hints toward full write-up format /writeup to [existing file] — Adds to specified document instead of creating new

Natural language after /writeup is interpreted as guidance, not rigid commands.

Essential Context

Style Guide: [YOUR_WRITING_PATH]/Context/style-guide.md

Writing CLAUDE.md: [YOUR_WRITING_PATH]/CLAUDE.md

Draft Location: [YOUR_WRITING_PATH]/draft writing/

Published Examples: [YOUR_WRITING_PATH]/published/

Read the style guide before drafting. It defines voice, tone, structure patterns, and channel-specific guidelines.

Format Tiers

LinkedIn is an adaptation of tier 3 or 4, not a separate tier.

Activation Protocol

When invoked:

Step 1: Understand the Work

Scan the current session (or recent sessions if specified) to understand:

• •What was built, decided, or learned?
• •What's the core insight or "so what"?
• •Are there artifacts worth showing? (code, configs, outputs, structures)
• •How significant is this? (quick fix vs. major build)

If unclear, ask briefly:

• •"What's the main thing worth capturing from this session?"
• •"Is there a specific insight that landed for you?"

Step 1.5: Check Purpose Alignment

Ground the writeup in your brand purpose (from style guide):

Ask yourself:

• •Does this work connect to your core themes?
• •Is there a real experiment or honest reflection to share?
• •Will this help readers understand something useful?
• •What's the insight that positions you as a trusted voice?

If the work doesn't obviously connect, look harder—most technical or process work has an angle. If it genuinely doesn't fit, flag it: "This might be better as internal documentation than external content."

Step 2: Assess Format Fit

Consider:

• •Complexity of work: Simple insight → tweet. Multi-part build → write-up.
• •Number of learnings: One thing → thread or less. Several things → write-up.
• •Artifact density: Lots to show → write-up. Nothing visual → can be shorter.
• •User hint: If they said "as a thread," weight heavily toward that.

Present recommendation:

"This looks like a [format]. [One sentence on why.] Sound right, or different direction?"

Wait for confirmation before drafting. User might say:

• •"Yes, go ahead"
• •"Actually make it shorter / longer"
• •"Just a tweet"
• •"Full write-up, this is important"

Step 3: Extract the Core

Before drafting, identify:

1. •The hook: What's the most interesting/surprising thing? Lead with this.
2. •The insight: What's the one thing this piece says?
3. •The stakes: Why should readers care?
4. •The artifacts: What can be shown, not just described?
5. •The open question: What's still being figured out? (for blog posts)

Step 4: Draft

Draft according to format tier and style guide principles.

For Tweets / Quick Capture

• •Boldest claim first
• •One idea per tweet
• •Can be observation ("I'm noticing..."), question ("Has anyone else found..."), or hot take
• •No need for complete thoughts—working in public is fine

For Threads

• •Hook tweet that stands alone
• •Each subsequent tweet adds one point
• •Can end with question or invitation
• •3-5 tweets max; link to blog for depth

For Week Notes

• •Hook that establishes why this matters
• •Brief personal context
• •Core insight with one supporting example or artifact
• •Open question or "what I'm trying next"
• •300-500 words

For Full Write-up

• •Hook + personal context + core insight + open question
• •Show artifacts (code blocks, file structures, actual outputs)
• •Claim → support pattern throughout
• •Section headers for scannability
• •800-1500 words
• •Include Claude's Notes section with:
  • •Possible Twitter angles
  • •Things that might need editing
  • •Missing context to potentially add

Step 5: Write to File

Default location: [YOUR_WRITING_PATH]/draft writing/[Title].md

If existing file specified: Append or integrate as appropriate.

File structure for full write-ups:

# [Title]

---

## Current Draft

[Content here]

---

## Claude's Notes

[Editorial notes, Twitter hooks, things to verify]

Voice Principles (From Style Guide)

• •Authoritative & principled: Confident from expertise, never condescending
• •Conversational & inclusive: Write as if speaking to intelligent peer
• •Thoughtful & analytical: Explore multiple angles
• •Optimistic yet nuanced: Forward-looking but realistic about challenges
• •Emotionally resonant: Weave in personal anecdotes, use vivid metaphors

Key Patterns

• •Show the artifact: Real diary entries > "the diary captured learnings"
• •Claim → support: Make a claim, then back it with example or citation
• •Strong openings: Hook with anecdote, bold statement, or provocative question
• •Memorable closes: Clear takeaway or thoughtful open question

Things to Avoid

• •Burying the lede
• •Abstract without concrete
• •Generic voice (could anyone have written this?)
• •Over-explaining
• •Weak closes that fizzle

Scope: Current vs. Multiple Sessions

Default: Current session only.

When user requests broader scope (e.g., "write up what I learned about X this week"):

• •Search episodic memory for relevant recent sessions
• •Synthesize key themes, but don't force connections
• •Lead with the strongest insights; synthesis can be added in editing
• •Note which sessions contributed in Claude's Notes

Don't over-synthesize: It's better to capture key notes cleanly than to force artificial connections. The user can add synthesis in their editing pass.

Integration with Handoff

The /handoff skill should consider suggesting /writeup when:

• •Session involved significant building or learning
• •There are clear insights worth sharing
• •Artifacts were created that could be shown

Suggested handoff prompt:

"This session had some learnings that might be worth documenting. Want to run /writeup before closing?"

Quick Reference

Final Check Before Delivering

• •Does it lead with the most interesting thing?
• •Is there a clear "so what"?
• •Are artifacts shown, not just described?
• •Does it sound like you, not generic AI?
• •Is the format right for the weight of the work?
• •Are editorial notes included (for longer formats)?