r-bart Metadata
- inherits:
../writing-style/SKILL.md - length target: 800-1500 words
- cadence: ad-hoc — when you have something to disagree with
long-form-hot-take
A short essay that picks a fight with conventional wisdom in your niche. Goal: make the reader either nod or push back — never shrug.
The voice and tone come from writing-style/SKILL.md. This skill only owns the format. If your style guide names contrarian-format references (specific authors, specific posts you admire), put them there — not here.
Structure
[Title: states the contrarian position directly. NO "Why X is dead" clickbait. Use a thesis.]
[Subtitle: 1 sentence — the reframe in plain terms.]
[Opener (2-4 sentences): name the conventional wisdom EVERYONE in your niche repeats. Quote it if possible. Don't strawman.]
[The pivot — 1 short paragraph or even one sentence: "I think this is wrong." or equivalent. Plant the flag.]
## Why the conventional wisdom fails
[2-4 paragraphs. Concrete examples of where the conventional advice breaks down. NAME the failure modes. Cite real cases if you have them.]
## What to do instead
[Your alternative. Stated as a rule, then shown via example. Be willing to say "this might be wrong but here's my bet".]
## Three things to try
[3-5 tangible actions the reader can take this week. Hot-takes without instructions are just complaining.]
[Closer (1-2 sentences): hard punch. Restate the position with no hedging. If you wouldn't bet money on it, don't write it.]
Rules specific to this format
- Pick a real fight. A hot-take that everyone secretly already agrees with isn't a hot-take. If your friends nod when you say it, dig deeper.
- Steelman the opposing view. Quote the best version of the conventional wisdom, not a strawman. You earn the right to disagree by representing it fairly.
- Stakes and consequences. Show what the conventional advice costs people who follow it. Concrete examples.
- Land with action. Without the "Three things to try" section, you're a pundit. With it, you're a builder.
- Own the uncertainty. "I might be wrong" is allowed ONCE in the piece. Use it to be more confident elsewhere, not as a hedge throughout.
Anti-patterns specific to this format
- Manufactured controversy ("Productivity is a SCAM!" when it isn't). Reader will smell it.
- Contrarian for its own sake. There must be a real cost to the conventional view.
- Quoting yourself or only fringe sources for the opposing view. Quote the loudest, most credible proponent.
- "Hot-take" written as a thread of rhetorical questions. That's a Twitter post, not an essay.
- Closer that backs down. "But of course, do what works for you!" — kills the whole piece.
Workflow
- Write the thesis sentence first. Show it to one person. If they say "yeah obvious", change the thesis or scrap it.
- Find the strongest 2-3 proponents of the conventional view. Quote them.
- List the failure modes. Each must be either a personal experience, a documented case, or a logical argument — not a feeling.
- Draft the alternative as a rule.
- Add the action steps.
- Cut every hedge except one.
- Run
editing-passandai-slop-check.