# Chrome Copy > Chrome copy - Skill: `gkurt/chrome-copy` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add gkurt/chrome-copy` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/gkurt/chrome-copy/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: gkurt (https://skillmd.com/u/gkurt) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/gkurt/chrome-copy --- # Chrome copy ## The one idea Every prose defect found on this site has the same cause: **the sentence is addressed to someone who already holds the author's model of the site.** In `SPEC.md` and in code comments that reader exists and the voice is excellent. On a page they do not exist, and the same voice produces copy that is true, well-formed, on-brand, and useless. So the question is never "is this well written". It is **who is this written to.** A reader arriving cold on one page, most likely a term page from a search engine, wanting a word. This produces two opposite symptoms, which is why the defect is hard to see. Rationale leak says too much. Presupposition says too little while sounding complete. Both come from assuming the reader is a peer reviewing the design. ## Three tests Apply in this order. They are cheap and they catch different things. **Subject test.** Does the grammatical subject name something the reader wants (a word, a page, a spelling), or something we built (terms, aliases, the dictionary's structure, the index)? A sentence whose subject is the machinery is written from the wrong seat. **So-what test.** What does the reader do differently having read this? If the honest answer is "understands our reasoning", cut it. Understanding our reasoning is not a user goal, and a reader who disagreed with a filing decision was never going to be argued round by a caption. **Cold-start test.** Read it as someone who has seen no other page on this site. If it needs a page they have not read, it is broken for most of the traffic. This one matters here more than on most sites: the build assumes people land on term pages from search (canonical URLs, breadcrumbs, per-term share images, a 60-character title budget), so vocabulary introduced only on the front page is introduced where fewest people are. ## Four failure modes ### 1. Rationale leak A design decision stated **with its justification**, when the reader needs neither. The tell is the word **so**: a because-clause pointing at a decision nobody questioned. ``` before Terms live at the top level, so this was probably a headword that is spelled differently here, or one nobody has written up yet. after We could not find that word. Check the spelling, or search the dictionary. before Aliases are left out here so the headwords read as a list; the glossary carries every spelling the site answers to. after Aliases are in the glossary. ``` The rationale is usually correct and usually already written down where it belongs. Check the neighbouring code comment before you delete it; often the page is quoting the comment. Cutting the rationale is not a licence to paraphrase the noun. That second one shipped for a while as "For the other names each term goes by, see the glossary", five words spent avoiding *alias* on a page whose own count line reads "3,888 aliases" two screens above. A word the site uses unglossed elsewhere is a word this page may use. ### 2. Advocacy where instruction belongs An argument, addressed to someone who might disagree with a design decision. Nobody on the page is disagreeing. Give the instruction and drop the case for it. ``` before An alias is not a footnote here, it is the spelling most people arrive with, so each one is listed under its own letter and takes you to the term it names. after Aliases are listed under their own letter and link to the term they name. ``` A whole paragraph can be advocacy. When the front page's tag section was renamed from "By facet", the paragraph defending the taxonomy became unnecessary and was deleted rather than rewritten. A rename that removes prose is doing real work. ### 3. Backlog and implementation disclosure The reader is shown the editorial pipeline or the index internals: what has not been written yet, why links are wired the way they are, what Pagefind indexes. ``` before These have a definition so links never dead-end. The article and demo are still to come. after These terms have a definition. The full article and demo are still to come. before Full text over every term: the headword, its aliases, the definition, and the article. If you only half know the word, describe the thing instead, because the articles are indexed too. after Search the full text of every entry: the term, its aliases, the definition and the article. If you only half know the word, describe the thing instead. ``` "Links never dead-end" is a maintainer's anxiety wearing a reader's reassurance. Keep the fact (there is a definition), drop the reason we made sure of it. ### 4. Presupposition A claim packaged as already-shared background instead of asserted. This is the nastiest mode, because a reader who lacks the presupposition does not see a broken sentence, they see a sentence that failed to land, and they blame themselves. It has four grammatical fingerprints: **Definite article on first mention.** "The" claims a referent the reader already has. ``` before Nothing for "toast". Aliases are indexed, so try the other name for it. after No results for "toast". Try another spelling, or describe the thing you mean. ``` That one was the worst string on the site: peak confusion, no affordance, three presuppositions, and an instruction that cannot be followed (if they knew the other name they would have typed it). When rewriting an empty state, give an action they can take with what they already know. **Contrastive particles with no stated contrast**: *here, instead, too, also, still, rather than, the other way*. Each presupposes an alternative never shown. "An alias is not a footnote **here**" needs a rival dictionary the reader is not holding. Mechanical first pass over a file you are auditing: ```bash grep -rnE "\b(here|instead|too|also|still|rather than|the other way)\b" \ | grep -vE ":[0-9]+: *(//|\*|\{/\*)" ``` Most surviving hits are innocent ("still to come" is temporal, not contrastive). The ones that are not will be obvious once you are looking. The second grep drops code comments, which is where this vocabulary legitimately lives and where most of the noise is. **House jargon used as if it were English.** The private vocabulary is *headword, alias, facet, specimen, stub, family, identify*. Some is deliberate house style worth keeping; what breaks is using it in a sentence that needs the reader to already have it. Two of these are internal names with a plain reader-facing twin, and the twin always wins: say **tag** for facet (SPEC §2.5) and **demo** for specimen (SPEC §6). For the rest, prefer grounding the word to banning it: ``` before Demos illustrate the concept; for production use, start here. after The demo above shows the idea. To build it, start with one of these. ``` "The demo above" points at the thing on the page, in place, at no cost. Grounding a house word that way is almost always better than either presupposing it or purging it. Also watch for the data model's verbs escaping. Terms do not **declare** things to a reader; authors declare things in frontmatter. ``` before 17 terms declare dark pattern · the same facet by category after 17 terms belong to dark pattern · see them grouped by category ``` **Deixis with no antecedent**: *these, this, here* pointing at a two-word heading or at nothing. ## The affordance exemption Do not apply the jargon rule to control labels. It is the one place the rule inverts, and over-applying it produces limp buttons. **Prose jargon** appears in a sentence, has no recovery, and the reader must already hold the concept for the sentence to pay off. **A control label is completed by the control**: it costs one click to test, the result is instant and reversible, and the label is learned for every future encounter. The stage's `⌖ Identify` button is fine exactly as it is. So is `Play` sitting next to it, and any objection that kills one kills the other. Bare transitive imperatives with an implied object are the normal register for buttons. Judge a label on whether pressing it teaches it, not on whether reading it does. A related distinction worth keeping: *headword* is deliberate house vocabulary, the way it is in a real dictionary, and a reader meets it beside the word it labels. *Specimen* was argued for on the same grounds and lost, because it is not standard anywhere a reader has been, and it was carrying the front page's opening paragraph and the description Google prints. The register a word buys is worth nothing at the moment of first contact. ## House constraints - **No em-dashes.** Comma, colon, period or parentheses. `bun validate` enforces this for term content; the chrome is on you. - **No contractions.** The chrome has zero, deliberately. Keep it that way. - **Active voice, conventional words.** A reader on a 404 is already confused; do not spend their attention on register. - **"tag", never "facet"** in any user-visible string. The URL, the frontmatter field and the Pagefind filter key all said `tag` all along; `facet` survives only as the internal name for the enriched object `facets()` returns, and in SPEC.md / AGENTS.md where the distinction from a category is what is being described. See SPEC §2.5. - Never a bare domain or raw URL in prose; a named site is a markdown link. ## Working **Writing something new.** Draft the useful sentence first, then run the three tests on it. Most first drafts fail the so-what test on their second clause, which is where the justification lands. **Auditing a file or a page.** Read every user-visible string, not just the paragraphs: headings, `aria-label`, `title`, `placeholder`, `