By name: writing-flow description: | A 3-step writing flow inspired by Matt Pocock. Each step is its own slash command and is "extremely demanding for the user" — you get grilled three different ways. Use whenever the user wants to write something where voice and structure matter more than speed: essays, blog posts, newsletters, opinion pieces, talks, long-form documentation, marketing copy that needs to sound human, even fiction.
Commands: - /fragments — mine voice-true fragments from the user (in their words) - /walk — walk a path through fragments beat-by-beat - /polish — final pass: contradictions, repetition, structure, links allowed-tools: Read Write Edit AskUserQuestion
Writing-flow — a 3-step writing process
A workflow for AI-assisted writing that mimics how serious writers actually work: lots of disconnected raw material, then deliberate assembly, then ruthless editing. Novelists do it with diaries; essayists do it with notebook scraps; technical writers do it with bulleted brain-dumps. The shape is the same.
Why this exists
The smart zone for AI-assisted coding is roughly 100K tokens. The smart zone for AI-assisted writing is much smaller — quality starts dropping around 50K tokens. Models start making dumb voice and structural choices long before they run out of context.
The fix is not a longer context window. The fix is splitting the work into three short, fresh-context passes — each one demanding enough on the user that the output stays in their voice instead of regressing to AI mush.
The three steps
| # | Command | What it does | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | /fragments |
Grills the user until they produce voice-true fragments in their own words. AI may propose sharpened phrasings; only the user's pick is committed verbatim. | fragments.md |
| 2 | /walk |
Walks a path through fragments.md beat-by-beat. Marks invented sentences with [+]. Grills the user before locking each beat. |
draft.md |
| 3 | /polish |
Runs four ordered passes (contradictions, repetition, structure, links) and grills on every issue. Subtractive only — never adds content. | final.md |
Hard rule between steps: clear context. Each command refuses to start unless the conversation is in a fresh window. Editorial judgment rots fast as context fills.
When to invoke this skill
Trigger when the user wants to write something and voice or structure matters. Strong signals:
- "Help me write [an essay / a post / a piece / a talk / a chapter]."
- "Let's start something" or "I want to draft X."
- "Get me grilled on this" or "fragments → walk → polish."
- The piece is more than a few paragraphs and the user cares how it sounds.
Skip for:
- One-off replies, comments, or short blurbs where speed beats voice.
- Pure reference docs (API references, config schemas) where there is no voice to preserve.
- Editing already-finished prose — use
humanizefor cleanup.
If you're not sure, ask one question: "Is voice or structure the thing that matters here?" If yes, this skill. If no, just write directly.
How to start
Route based on what already exists in the working directory:
- No fragments yet →
/fragments. fragments.mdexists, fresh context window →/walk.draft.mdexists, fresh context window →/polish.
If the user is somewhere in the middle and unsure, ask: "Do you have raw fragments yet, a draft, or nothing?" — and route from there.
What this skill will not do
- Will not run all three steps in one session. The context-clear is load-bearing.
- Will not commit fragments in the AI's own words. The AI may propose sharpened phrasings, but only what the user picks (or rewrites) is saved.
- Will not invent citations, links, or sources during polish.
- Will not promise this is faster than writing without AI. It probably isn't. The promise is higher quality and less frustration.