# Strategist Voice > Apply the analyst house style to a long-form report. - Skill: `lyndonkl/strategist-voice-2` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add lyndonkl/strategist-voice-2` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/lyndonkl/strategist-voice-2/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Docs & Writing - License: MIT - Author: lyndonkl (https://skillmd.com/u/lyndonkl) - Updated: 2026-09-21 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/lyndonkl/strategist-voice-2 --- # Strategist voice The house style for analyst-grade writing: third-person register with sparing first person, no em dashes, no "not X, not Y, not Z" negation cascades, numbered footnote citations instead of inline source parentheticals, specific opinion-signalling phrases, and topic-forward paragraphs. It is modelled on the voice patterns of Damodaran's Musings on Markets and Thompson's Stratechery. Apply it in the final consolidation step, when working notes become a publishable document; it is not a drafting aid and it does not check readability or slop (see `readability-check` and `slop-detector`). ## When to Use - Consolidating working notes into a finished long-form strategist, analyst, or forecast report. - The document must read as written by a senior human analyst rather than an assistant. - A draft is full of em dashes, negation cascades, inline `(Source: ...)` citations, or `Strategist inference:` prefixes. - Opinion needs to be signalled with graded conviction rather than hedged or asserted flatly. - The user asks for the house style, the analyst voice, or a research-note register. ## The two reference voices The house style synthesises two analyst-blogger voices: - **Aswath Damodaran** (Musings on Markets): academic-conversational, rigorous frameworks delivered in a personal voice; first-person opinion stated openly; historical or philosophical hooks; data woven into prose without footnote interruption. - **Ben Thompson** (Stratechery): counterintuitive openings; named frameworks earning their analytical keep; punchy declaratives alternated with subordinate-clause sentences; sources named in prose; opinion signalled through specific phrasing. Both write at a sentence level that no assistant default produces. The rules below capture what they share. Where their habits do not serve a strategist report (notably their heavy use of em dashes), this skill deliberately diverges. ## Hard rules The consolidating agent must enforce these. They are non-negotiable. Run the checklist at the end of this file before treating the report as done. 1. **Zero em dashes.** Use a period, semicolon, comma, parenthesis, or rewrite the sentence. Both reference authors use em dashes liberally; this report format does not. 2. **Zero "not X, not Y, not Z" negation cascades.** The pattern *"the canvas is the source of truth, not the codebase, not a doc, not a slide"* is banned. Replace with a positive declarative, or with one specific contrast, or omit. 3. **Zero `Strategist inference:` prefixes.** Signal synthesis through phrasing (see "Opinion signalling" below). 4. **Footnoted citations only.** Use `claim text.[^7]` in the body with `[^7]: Source, URL` in a bibliography section. Never inline `[Source: Org, URL]` or `(Source: Org, URL)`. 5. **No "It's worth noting that..." hollow openings.** Either state the thing directly or omit. Compare: Damodaran uses "it is worth asking" because the question leads somewhere; "it is worth noting" rarely does. 6. **No tl;dr-style closers.** No "In conclusion," "Ultimately," "To summarize." The verdict section is the conclusion; the rest of the report should not summarise itself in passing. 7. **Bulleted lists only where the structure earns them.** Strategic bet lists, surface cards, metric lists, and the bibliography are correct uses. A list as a substitute for an argument-in-prose paragraph is incorrect. 8. **No "X is doing Y because Z" as a primary sentence shape repeated across paragraphs.** It reads as machine output. Vary. 9. **No undefined strategy jargon.** Terms like *the wedge*, *flywheel*, *TAM*, *NDR*, *aggregation theory*, *platform-shaped*, *land-and-expand*, *moat*, *take rate*, *attach rate* must be defined on first appearance, or rewritten away. Define inline (a brief parenthetical, an appositive phrase, or a setup sentence immediately before the term). If defining the term breaks the prose flow, restructure the sentence to avoid the term entirely. The reader is a smart generalist, not a strategy consultant. A term used twice without ever being defined is the single clearest signal that the writer has copied a register rather than thought through the argument. 10. **No abstract X-shaped / Y-shaped labels doing analytical work.** Phrases like *"the vision is platform-shaped, not feature-shaped"* sound analytical but explain nothing. Replace with the concrete description the label was standing in for. Example: *"the credible vision at this stage is a base layer that other products build on, not a single feature."* ## Opinion signalling Replace `Strategist inference:` with specific phrasing. The strength scale runs from tentative to high conviction: - **Tentative**: "appears to," "the evidence suggests," "perhaps," "arguably" - **Reasoned**: "the more likely reading is," "this analyst's reading is," "in our reading," "the more interesting question is" - **Confident**: "without question," "the evidence is clear," "this is the central bet," "the reasons are simple" - **Provocative**: "it is worth asking," "the bet is wrong," "the more obvious explanation" Use first person ("we," "this analyst's reading," "in our reading") sparingly. Once or twice per long section is correct; once per paragraph is wrong. Reserve it for the genuine judgment calls. ## Paragraph and sentence structure - **Topic-forward.** Lead the paragraph with the claim. Then elaborate, qualify, support. - **Vary sentence length deliberately.** Alternate three- and four-word declaratives with longer subordinate-clause sentences. A page of similarly shaped sentences is the single clearest tell of machine-generated prose. - **Short paragraphs.** Three or four sentences is plenty. Long paragraphs are usually buried arguments. ## Opening paragraphs Use one of these three patterns. None of them define the company. 1. **Counterintuitive frame.** Name a tension or paradox, then pivot to the subject. Thompson's "Tim Cook's Impeccable Timing" opens by observing that CEO eulogies typically occur at retirement rather than death. 2. **Historical or philosophical comparison.** Set up a broad observation, then place the subject inside it. Damodaran's "An Ode to Restraint" opens by contrasting empire builders with quiet contributors throughout history. 3. **Specific data point with a take on it.** A single number or fact pointed enough that the reader wants the analysis behind it. Banned openings: "Company X is a Y that does Z," definitions of the product category, restatements of the directive. ## Citation form Numbered footnotes. In the body: > Figma's Q4 2025 revenue grew 40% year on year.[^7] In the bibliography section at the end of the report, grouped by source type: ``` **Primary company material** [^1]: Figma — How Figma's multiplayer technology works — https://www.figma.com/blog/... [^7]: Figma Investor Relations — Q4 2025 results — https://investor.figma.com/... **Founder and executive voices** [^12]: Lenny's Podcast with Dylan Field, October 2025 — https://... **Engineering and architecture material** [^18]: ... **Secondary analysis** [^24]: ... ``` Footnote markers go after the sentence punctuation. Never two markers on the same fact. Never a parenthetical citation inside a sentence. The dashes in bibliography lines are the one place the em dash is tolerated; they are not prose. ## Examples Load [style-examples.md](references/style-examples.md) with `skill_view("strategist-voice", file_path="references/style-examples.md")` for annotated good-and-bad rewrites of opening paragraphs, opinion-signalled sentences, negation-cascade fixes, citation forms, and synthesis statements. ## Final-pass checklist Copy this into the working response when consolidating the final report. Tick each item before declaring the report finished. ``` Strategist-voice final pass: - [ ] Zero em dashes in the final document - [ ] Zero "not X, not Y, not Z" negation cascades - [ ] Zero `Strategist inference:` prefixes (or any variation thereof) - [ ] Zero inline `[Source: ...]` or `(Source: ...)` citations - [ ] Zero "It's worth noting" hollow openings - [ ] Zero "In conclusion / Ultimately / To summarize" closers - [ ] The opening paragraph uses one of the three permitted patterns - [ ] At least three opinion-signalling phrases (from the list above) appear in the synthesis section - [ ] Sentence length varies visibly within paragraphs - [ ] First person ("we," "this analyst's reading") used at most twice per major section - [ ] Bibliography is grouped by source type and uses numbered footnote anchors that match in-text markers - [ ] Every strategy-jargon term ("wedge", "flywheel", "TAM", "NDR", "moat", "attach rate", "X-shaped" labels, etc.) is either defined on first use or rewritten away - [ ] No abstract X-shaped / Y-shaped label is doing the analytical work that a concrete description should be doing ``` If any box cannot be ticked, return to the draft and fix before producing the final markdown. ## Verification Run `search_files` over the finished document for the em dash character, `Strategist inference`, `[Source:`, `(Source:`, `It's worth noting`, `In conclusion`, `Ultimately`, and `To summarize`. Zero hits outside the bibliography is the bar. Then hand the document to `slop-detector` and `readability-check`; this skill's pass is complete only when those two also pass.