ArthurZakirov Authority-First Headlines Skill
Purpose
Rewrite titles, headlines, repository descriptions, homepage hero lines, LinkedIn headlines, article titles, and section openers so they lead with credible authority before explaining the content.
Use this when a title sounds like a generic description instead of a reason to care.
Core Pattern
Authority -> Outcome -> Mechanism -> Reader Promise
Examples of authority:
- A measurable result
- A recognized institution
- A senior audience
- A hard operating context
- A respected company, university, publication, or framework
- A concrete proof point such as "used by 20+ engineers"
- A rare achievement, ranking, certification, or adoption signal
Rewrite Rules
- Lead with proof before explanation.
- Weak: "A tool for setting up AI development environments."
- Stronger: "The AI workstation setup method adapted from senior engineering workflows."
- Prefer specific authority over vague authority.
- Weak: "Trusted by professionals."
- Stronger: "Used by 20+ engineers and technical leaders."
- Borrowed authority must be truthful and traceable.
- Acceptable: "Adapted from practices learned from a senior engineering lead, then customized for my own workflow."
- Not acceptable: "Google's official workflow" unless it actually is official.
- Do not overclaim ownership of institutional authority.
- Say "inspired by," "adapted from," "used in," "learned from," or "based on public guidance from" when appropriate.
- Avoid implying endorsement.
- Add curiosity when possible.
- Weak: "How to prioritize automation."
- Stronger: "The 770-hour automation opportunity hidden behind a 41-hour roadmap."
Headline Templates
[Authority proof] + [result] + [reader promise][Recognized source/framework] + [practical application][Unexpected contrast] + [outcome] + [how-to promise][Senior audience adopted X] + Here's how it works[Hard constraint] + [surprising result] + [repeatable method]
Checklist
- Does the title answer "why should I trust this?"
- Does it contain a concrete proof point if available?
- Does it avoid false endorsement?
- Does it make the reader curious?
- Does it imply a useful method, not just a finished artifact?