Consolidate Style

Skill: consolidate-style

What it does. Periodically reads the accumulated decision history — R: annotations, revision log, the author's own rewrites — finds patterns, and proposes evidence-backed updates to .project/config/persona.md. The engine behind define-persona's update mode: this skill builds the diff; that one applies it through conversation.

Triggers

• "consolidate the style"
• "/consolidate-style"
• "what has the system learned about my voice?"
• Suggested automatically after every 3–5 chapters revised
• Equivalent phrasing in the project's output language

Input. None required; optionally a scope (since last consolidation — the default).

Output. A proposed diff to persona.md, presented for the author's ruling. Applied only after approval, with a changelog entry.

Write the proposal in the project's output language.

Core principle

Three occurrences make a pattern. One makes an anecdote.

The persona must not chase every decision — a single "kept it" may be situational, a single rewrite may be mood. This skill's value is the threshold: it only proposes what the evidence supports, and it shows the evidence.

Every proposed change carries its receipts: the decisions, chapters, and quotes that back it. A persona built on receipts is one the author trusts — and one draft-scene can bet on.

Execution protocol

Step 1 — Load context

1. .project/config/project.yaml — output language
2. .project/config/persona.md — current state, including its changelog (what was already consolidated)
3. .project/reports/revision-log.md — the decision history
4. All _analysis.md files with R: annotations since the last consolidation — searched recursively, since chapter layout nests them one level down
5. Revised chapters vs. their pre-revision analyses — the author's own rewrites are the richest data

Step 2 — Mine four pattern types

a) Defended constructions. The same construction type kept under analysis fire in 3+ chapters → candidate for "Personal signatures". (Example: antithesis kept specifically at turning points, cut elsewhere — the pattern includes the context.)

b) Substitution habits. When the author rewrites, what do they consistently do? Replace X-type words with Y-type; shorten; convert named emotion to gesture in their own way. These are the most generative findings — they teach draft-scene and revise-passage what the author would do.

c) Rejection patterns. Suggestions consistently refused (3+): the analysis is misfiring somewhere → propose raising that category's /1k ceiling, or adding an exception note. Check the revision-log densities first: if the chapters landed under the total ceiling anyway, the refusals are evidence the default was wrong for this book, not that the author is over-attached.

d) Drift and evolution. The author's revisions trending somewhere the persona doesn't describe — leaner over time, new devices appearing in their unassisted rewrites. Voice evolves; the persona must follow, dated.

Step 3 — Check for internal conflicts

New evidence can contradict existing persona entries. Never overwrite — surface:

"Persona v1 says you avoid sentence fragments. In the last four revised chapters you introduced eleven, all in high-tension beats. Update the entry to 'fragments in tension scenes' or keep the old rule?"

Step 4 — Build the diff

## Persona consolidation — {date}
_Scope: chapters {X–Y}, {N} decisions reviewed_

### Add to "Personal signatures" ({N})
1. **{construction}** — kept in {chs}, {N} decisions
   Evidence: "{quote}" ({ch}); "{quote}" ({ch})

### Adjust ceilings ({N})
1. cat. {N} ({name}): {old}/1k → {new}/1k — you kept {N} occurrences across chs. {X–Y} and the chapters still landed under the total ceiling
   Destination: `style-guide.md → Density ceilings` (project-wide) or `persona.md` §4 (voice-specific)

### Substitution habits to record ({N})
1. {pattern} — seen in {N} rewrites
   Example: "{before}" → "{after}" ({ch})

### Conflicts needing your ruling ({N})
1. {the conflict, both readings, no default}

### Model-passage candidates ({N})
1. {chapter/passage} — post-revision prose that outperforms current section-8 models

Step 5 — Apply after ruling

The author approves, strikes, or amends. Apply the approved diff to persona.md, bump the version, write the changelog entry with the evidence scope. Report which skills benefit immediately (analyze-chapter stops flagging X; draft-scene gains Y).

What to avoid

Anecdote promotion. Below threshold, no proposal. The persona's authority depends on its evidence bar.

Silent application. Every change passes the author. This file is the author's voice; they own every line.

Averaging the voice away. Patterns can conflict by register (lean narrator, lush interludes). Record the conditional pattern — "X in context Y" — never flatten to the mean.

Ignoring the changelog. Re-proposing something the author already struck wastes trust. The changelog is memory; read it.

Freezing evolution. When the current voice contradicts old entries, that is not noise — it may be growth. Date it, present it, let the author decide which self wins.

Cadence

Every 3–5 revised chapters, or at each Act boundary. Late consolidation loses compounding: every chapter drafted with a stale persona costs curation effort the update would have saved.

Relationship to other skills