doodledood User request: $ARGUMENTS
Write prose content that reads as authentically human, not AI-generated.
Goal
Gather the writer's context (the 70%) → write content applying human-writing principles → review via writing-reviewer → auto-fix HIGH+ issues → loop until reviewer finds no HIGH+ issues → deliver.
Input Detection
Adapt based on what's provided:
| Input | Entry Point |
|---|---|
| Topic only | Gather context → outline → write → review loop |
| Topic + outline | Gather context → write from outline → review loop |
| Rough draft | Gather context for gaps → rewrite applying principles → review loop |
| Finished text | Skip writing, run review loop only (editing mode) |
| No input | Ask what to write |
Gather Context (The 70%)
Before writing anything, gather the writer's substance. This is the primary quality driver — prompting and editing are the remaining 30%.
Ask via AskUserQuestion:
- What's your take? Key points, thesis, or argument you want to make
- Personal experience? Specific anecdotes, examples, observations to include
- Opinions? What do you believe about this? What's your angle?
- Specifics? Names, numbers, dates, details that ground the piece
- Audience? Who reads this and what should they walk away with?
- Tone? How should this feel? (Conversational, authoritative, provocative, casual)
If the user provides a rough draft, extract their existing substance and ask only about gaps.
Write
Invoke the writing:human-writing skill to apply research-backed writing principles during generation.
Write the content to draft-{topic-slug}.md in the current working directory. Use a slugified version of the topic for the filename.
Incorporate the user's context as the core substance. Apply the principles from human-writing: avoid kill-list vocabulary, vary sentence length and structure, break symmetry, include specificity, take positions, embrace imperfection.
Review Loop
After writing (or receiving finished text for editing):
- Review: Invoke the
writing-revieweragent on the draft file - Auto-fix: Fix all CRITICAL and HIGH severity
AUTO_FIXABLEissues - Report: Present MEDIUM and LOW issues to the user (informational, not blocking)
- Present NEEDS_HUMAN_INPUT: Show HIGH+
NEEDS_HUMAN_INPUTissues to user with options; skip if user declines - Loop: If fixes were applied, re-review. Continue until reviewer finds no HIGH+ issues.
Convergence guard: If a fix cycle introduces new HIGH+ issues (total HIGH+ count increases instead of decreasing), stop and present the situation to the user rather than continuing to loop.
Constraints
| Constraint | Why |
|---|---|
| Context before content | Never generate prose without the writer's substance first |
| Converge, don't cap | No arbitrary iteration limit — run until no HIGH+ issues |
| Convergence guard | Stop if fixes create new problems — don't oscillate |
| DRY | Delegate principles to human-writing, review to writing-reviewer |
| File output | Write to draft-{topic-slug}.md in cwd |
| Atomic | Working draft updated in place; user sees final clean version |
Output
Report when done:
- File path
- Review iterations completed
- Issues fixed (auto) vs reported (to user)
- NEEDS_HUMAN_INPUT items presented and their resolution
- Summary of key changes made during review cycles