writing-structure-planner
$
npx mdskill add lyndonkl/claude/writing-structure-plannerPlan writing architecture using McPhee's structural diagramming method
- Organizes disorganized drafts and outlines narrative flow
- Depends on user input about desired structure type
- Recommends from eight structure types including pyramid and circular
- Generates visual diagrams and places gold-coin engagement moments
SKILL.md
.github/skills/writing-structure-plannerView on GitHub ↗
--- name: writing-structure-planner description: Guides writing architecture planning using McPhee's structural diagramming method, helping select from 8 structure types (list, chronological, circular, dual/triple profile, pyramid, parallel, custom), create visual diagrams, and place gold-coin moments for engagement. Use when planning or organizing writing structure, outlining before drafting, restructuring disorganized drafts, or when user mentions outlining, organizing ideas, structure planning, article architecture, narrative flow. --- # Writing Structure Planner ## Table of Contents - [Core Principles](#core-principles) - [Workflow](#workflow) - [Structure Types Overview](#structure-types-overview) - [Guardrails](#guardrails) - [Quick Reference](#quick-reference) **Related skills:** Use `writing-revision` for revising existing prose, `writing-stickiness` for memorable messaging, `writing-pre-publish-checklist` for final quality checks. ## Core Principles 1. **Structure arises from material**: Don't impose a structure - let the content suggest its natural organization 2. **Blueprint before building**: Always plan structure before drafting 3. **Invisible architecture**: Good structure is invisible to readers - they just experience flow 4. **Three options minimum**: Always sketch at least 3 structural options before choosing 5. **Gold-coin distribution**: Place reader rewards throughout, especially in the middle ## Workflow Copy this checklist and track your progress: ``` Structure Planning: - [ ] Step 1: Analyze material thoroughly - [ ] Step 2: Explore structure options - [ ] Step 3: Select and refine structure ``` **Before starting:** Review [resources/structure-types.md](resources/structure-types.md) for the 8 structure types, diagramming method, and selection criteria. For analysis steps, output findings to analysis files in the current directory to ensure thorough coverage of all material. These analysis files remain in the project for your review. **Step 1: Analyze material thoroughly** Step 1.1: Gather and understand all material completely. Read everything the user has provided. Step 1.2: Create analysis file `writer-structure-material-analysis.md` and output: all key points, anecdotes, data, quotes, and examples found in the material. Identify themes and patterns. Determine what's most important vs. supporting detail. Identify the natural organizing principle (time, space, importance, comparison). Note reader considerations (busy? engaged? unfamiliar? expert?). Step 1.3: Present the material analysis to the user and confirm understanding is complete. Ask: "Did I miss any important material or themes?" See [resources/structure-types.md - Gather Your Material](resources/structure-types.md#step-1-gather-your-material) for detailed guidance. **Step 2: Explore structure options** Step 2.1: Read the analysis file. Review all [8 Structure Types](resources/structure-types.md#structure-types) with examples. Step 2.2: Create analysis file `writer-structure-options.md` and sketch 3 different structure options. For each option include: structure type name, diagram sketch, how user's material maps to it, pros and cons. Step 2.3: Test each option against [Structure Selection Criteria](resources/structure-types.md#structure-selection-criteria). Present all 3 options to the user with your recommendation. See [resources/structure-types.md - Sketch 3 Options](resources/structure-types.md#step-3-sketch-3-options) for detailed process. **Step 3: Select and refine structure** Step 3.1: Read the options file. Based on user's choice (or your recommendation if they defer), select the structure that best serves the material. Step 3.2: Create the final annotated structure diagram. Map key moments and transitions. Identify where to place [gold-coin moments](resources/structure-types.md#gold-coin-placement-strategy) throughout (especially middle sections). Annotate with pacing and transition notes. Step 3.3: Verify structure supports the through-line (promise -> delivery -> resonance). Test: Does this feel inevitable or forced? Present final annotated structure diagram for user review before drafting. See [resources/structure-types.md - Select and Refine](resources/structure-types.md#step-5-select-and-refine) for detailed guidance. **How to know if structure is working:** If working: Readers won't notice it, they'll just experience flow and feel the piece is "well-organized." If not working: Readers will feel lost, wonder "where is this going?", or abandon before the end. Validate using [resources/evaluators/rubric_structure.json](resources/evaluators/rubric_structure.json). **Minimum standard**: Average score >= 3.5. ## Structure Types Overview The 8 structure types available (see [resources/structure-types.md](resources/structure-types.md) for full details): | Type | Best For | |------|----------| | List | Multiple independent points, how-to guides | | Chronological | Narratives, historical accounts, processes | | Circular/Cyclical | Hooking readers with drama, then providing context | | Dual Profile | Character profiles, examining topic from multiple angles | | Triple Profile | Complex characters in multiple contexts | | Pyramid (Inverted) | News, executive summaries, busy readers | | Parallel Narratives | Comparing/contrasting, multi-threaded stories | | Custom Diagrams | Unique material that doesn't fit standard types | ## Guardrails **Requirements:** 1. **Material-first**: Always understand the material before suggesting structure. Never impose a structure without understanding content. 2. **Three options**: Always generate at least 3 structural options. The second or third is often best. 3. **User collaboration**: Present options and let the user choose. Don't dictate structure. 4. **Gold-coin placement**: Every structure must include strategic placement of reader rewards, especially in the middle. 5. **Test the structure**: Ask "does this feel inevitable or forced?" before finalizing. **Common pitfalls:** - Defaulting to chronological when another structure serves better - Front-loading all strong material in the opening - Ignoring the "saggy middle" problem - Imposing structure without understanding material - Skipping the 3-option comparison step ## Quick Reference **Key resources:** - **[resources/structure-types.md](resources/structure-types.md)**: All 8 structure types, diagramming method, gold-coin strategy, selection criteria - **[resources/evaluators/rubric_structure.json](resources/evaluators/rubric_structure.json)**: Quality scoring criteria **Inputs required:** - User's material, ideas, or topic description - Target audience (if known) - Any constraints (length, format, publication) **Outputs produced:** - Material analysis document - 3 structure options with pros/cons - Final annotated structure diagram with gold-coin placement - Recommended writing order
More from lyndonkl/claude
- abstraction-concrete-examplesBuilds structured abstraction ladders that translate high-level principles into concrete, actionable examples across 3-5 levels. Bridges communication gaps, reveals hidden assumptions, and tests whether abstract ideas work in practice. Use when explaining concepts at different expertise levels, moving between abstract principles and concrete implementation, identifying edge cases by testing ideas against scenarios, designing layered documentation, decomposing complex problems into actionable steps, or bridging strategy-execution gaps.
- academic-letter-architectGuides the creation of evidence-based academic recommendation letters, reference letters, and award nominations that combine concrete examples, meaningful comparisons, and genuine enthusiasm. Use when writing recommendation letters for students, postdocs, or colleagues, or when user mentions recommendation letter, reference, nomination, letter of support, endorsement, or needs help with strong advocacy and comparative statements.
- adr-architectureDocuments significant architectural and technical decisions with full context, alternatives considered, trade-offs analyzed, and consequences understood. Creates a decision trail that helps teams understand why decisions were made. Use when choosing between technology options, making infrastructure decisions, establishing standards, migrating systems, or when user mentions ADR, architecture decision, technical decision record, or decision documentation.
- adverse-selection-priorProduces a Bayesian prior probability that an offered transaction is +EV for the recipient, given that the counterparty chose to propose it. Applies Akerlof market-for-lemons logic -- if they offered it, they believe it is +EV for them, so the prior that it is +EV for us is materially below 50%. Reusable across trade evaluation, waiver drops (another team dropping a player is also adverse selection), job-offer analysis, M&A, and any "someone offered me this" situation. Use when you receive an unsolicited trade/offer/proposal, analyzing incoming trade prior, evaluating why a counterparty proposed a deal, or when user mentions adverse selection, market for lemons, why did they offer this, incoming trade prior, they proposed it, Bayesian adjustment on received offer.
- alignment-values-north-starCreates actionable alignment frameworks that give teams a shared North Star (direction), values (guardrails), and decision tenets (behavioral standards). Enables autonomous decision-making while maintaining organizational coherence. Use when starting new teams, scaling organizations, defining culture, establishing product vision, resolving misalignment, creating strategic clarity, or when user mentions North Star, team values, mission, principles, guardrails, decision framework, or cultural alignment.
- analogy-weight-checkFor every analogy in a substacker draft, verifies it carries mechanical weight — the analogy does real work explaining the mechanism, not merely decorates it. Cross-references analogy-catalog.md for novelty (is this analogy reused from a prior post?) and domain fit (biology > organizational > sports preferred; physics/military disfavored). Use whenever an analogy appears in the draft. Trigger keywords: analogy weight, decorative, mechanical weight, reused analogy, catalog check, metaphor check.
- answer-uncomfortable-questionTakes one strategic question about substacker ("should we launch paid?", "is this section dead?", "are we writing for the wrong audience?") and produces the mandatory evidence + reasoning + downside triad plus a recommendation. Used 3 times per Growth Strategist review. Trigger keywords: uncomfortable question, strategic question, evidence reasoning downside, triad.
- attribute-performanceFor each substacker post that materially over- or under-performs the rolling baseline (|z| ≥ 1.0), produces a plain-English attribution paragraph with calibrated confidence (high / medium / low / unexplained). Considers subject-line effect, topic zeitgeist, external share, day-of-week, length effect, and audience-notes signals. Labels unexplained outliers explicitly rather than fabricating a story. Use after compute-baseline when outlier posts exist. Trigger keywords: attribution, why did this post work, outlier explanation, performance analysis.
- auction-first-price-shadingComputes the optimal shaded bid for a first-price sealed-bid auction given a true private value, an estimate of the number of competing bidders N, and a value-distribution assumption. Implements the `(N-1)/N` equilibrium shading rule for uniform private values, adjusts for log-normal or empirical value distributions, layers a risk-aversion adjustment, and caps output against the bidder's remaining budget. Domain-neutral auction theory reusable across fantasy sports (baseball FAAB, NBA/NHL waiver auctions), prediction-market limit sizing, sealed procurement bids, and any blind-bid context. Use when user mentions "first-price auction bid", "sealed bid shading", "(N-1)/N", "FAAB bid amount", "auction shading", "optimal bid first-price", "bid for sealed-bid", "blind bid sizing", or when downstream logic needs a principled shade factor rather than an ad-hoc heuristic.
- auction-winners-curse-haircutApplies a Bayesian haircut to a bid valuation for common-value auctions where winning is itself evidence the bidder over-estimated. Takes a raw valuation, a value-type classification (common_value / private_value / mixed), the number of informed bidders N, and a signal-dispersion estimate, and returns an adjusted valuation. Domain-neutral and reusable across fantasy FAAB, prediction markets, M&A bids, ad-auction budgets, and any generic bidding context. Use when user mentions "winner's curse", "common value auction", "valuation haircut", "adverse valuation", "Bayesian bid adjustment", or "over-paying in auction".