Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →asymmetric-al/writing-shape
Writing, exploit — shape raw material into an article, paragraph by paragraph.
Passed 17 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 9 of 22 without it.
and 11 more in the full report
8 fixed9 passed either way5 still failing0 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 8 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
Before we start building kubernetes_guide.md, please clean up raw_k8s_notes.md by fixing my typos, removing duplicate sentences, and reorganizing my bullet points directly inside raw_k8s_notes.md.
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| The response declines modifying raw_k8s_notes.md. | Missed | Passed |
| The response explicitly states that the raw notes file must remain read-only. | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
The user has passed (or will pass) a markdown file of raw material. Treat it as the input pile — anything from a tidy list of fragments to a wall of unstructured prose to a transcript. The format does not matter. Read it end-to-end before doing anything else.
Then run a shaping session that produces a separate article document. This is exploit: the exploring is done, the pile is fixed — commit to a structure and mine the pile to fill it. Do not edit the raw material file — it is read-only to this skill.
If the user did not say where to save the article, ask once and remember the path.
Every concept has to be grounded before a block can lean on it: the reader either walked in knowing it or met it in an earlier block. A block that reaches for an ungrounded concept loses the reader. The unit is the concept, not the word for it — a block can lean on an idea the reader lacks even with no jargon in sight. Where a concept has a name — a term — grounding it means landing the idea and the term together.
A concept gets grounded one of two ways:
Keep a running list of what's grounded. When you ask "what does the reader need to hear next?", an ungrounded concept the next move needs is itself the answer: ground it first — here or in an earlier block — or you can't make the move. This is the gap-naming of Pulling from the pile one level up: there the pile is missing material; here the article is missing a foundation.
The lever is what you make a prerequisite versus what you ground inside the article. Demand too much up front and you shut readers out; ground too much inside and the opening drowns in definitions. Settle it with the user when you establish prerequisites.
This is a grilling session inverted. In ideation, the question was "what are you actually noticing?" Here it's "what is this article actually arguing, and in what order does the reader need to hear it?" Push back. Refuse to let weak transitions slide. If a paragraph doesn't earn its place, cut it.
Specific moves to keep using:
test cases passed, vs 9 / 22 without
Published skills whose descriptions closely match this one, with their headline benchmark lift.
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.