# Writing Coach > A pluggable writing coach that critiques a draft against a set of coaching "lenses" and pushes back where it falls short. Ships with three lenses: specificity (calls out vague claims and missing detail, then asks for what is missing instead of guessing), impact-over-activity (flags "reading the news" prose that narrates activity and reframes it around outcomes and so-what), and executive-audience (checks SLT/exec updates for BLUF, an explicit ask, and one-screen brevity). Unlike a rewriter, the coach finds what is missing or mis-framed and asks pointed questions rather than fabricating facts. Add new lenses by dropping a markdown file in lenses/. Use when the user says "coach my writing", "critique this draft", "call me out", "is this detailed enough", "make this about impact not activity", "am I just reading the news", "is this ready for the SLT/execs", or "review this before I send it". - Skill: `ryanwaite/writing-coach` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 5 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add ryanwaite/writing-coach` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/ryanwaite/writing-coach/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Docs & Writing - Author: ryanwaite (https://skillmd.com/u/ryanwaite) - Updated: 2026-09-22 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/ryanwaite/writing-coach --- # Writing Coach Critique a draft and push back where it falls short. The coach is not a rewriter — it finds what is **missing, vague, or mis-framed**, names it plainly, and **asks for what it needs rather than inventing it**. A rewrite is optional and only offered after the substance is sound. This skill is **pluggable**. Each coaching concern is a self-contained *lens* in `lenses/`. The procedure loads every lens it finds, so adding a new concern later means dropping one markdown file in that folder — nothing else changes. ## When to Use - "Coach my writing" / "critique this draft" / "review this before I send it" - "Call me out" / "be harsh" / "where am I hand-waving?" - "Is this detailed enough?" / "am I being specific?" - "Make this about impact, not activity" / "am I just reading the news?" ## Relationship to other skills The coach fixes **substance and framing**; `classic-style` fixes **prose**. Natural order: **coach first, then classic-style.** If the user wants both, run the coach, settle the open questions, then hand the result to `classic-style`. ## Inputs - **The draft** — pasted inline, quoted, or a path to a local file the current environment can read. If it is missing, ask for it. Never invent the draft. - **Lens selection** (optional) — by default, apply **all** lenses in `lenses/`. If the user names one ("just the impact lens"), apply only that. - **Mode** (optional) — default is **critique only**. If the user says "critique and rewrite" (or "fix it"), also produce a revised draft *after* listing the gaps. Mark any place that needs a fact the author has not supplied as `[NEEDS: the exact question]` for the user to fill in. Never substitute an invented fact for a `[NEEDS: …]` marker. ## Procedure ### Step 1 — Discover the lenses Load the lenses **fresh from disk every run** so newly added ones are picked up. Do not rely on a hardcoded list or on lenses that merely happen to be in context. The lenses live in the `lenses/` folder next to this `SKILL.md`. List that folder and select every `*.md` file **except** those whose filename begins with `_` (e.g. `_TEMPLATE.md` is a scaffold, not a lens). Process them in sorted order for a stable result. For example, from the skill's own directory: ```bash ls lenses/*.md 2>/dev/null | grep -v '/_' | sort ``` Then: - **Report what loaded.** Before critiquing, state `Loaded lenses: ` so the user can see which lenses ran. - **Treat zero lenses as an error, not an empty success.** If discovery finds no valid lens files, stop and say so rather than silently producing no findings. - If the user selected specific lenses, filter to those (match on the lens title or filename; if a requested lens can't be found, say so). - **Read each selected lens file in full** before critiquing — each defines its own applicability, signals, coaching move, questions, and example. Because an agent (not a deterministic program) runs this, discovery is best-effort: if you cannot list the folder, say so instead of guessing which lenses exist. ### Step 2 — Read the draft closely Read the whole draft first. Note its **purpose and audience** — stated or inferred — because the next step needs them to decide which lenses apply. ### Step 3 — Check each lens for applicability, then apply the ones that fit "Apply all lenses" means **evaluate every loaded lens for fit**, not emit findings from every lens. For each lens, read its **Applies when** and **Does not apply when** sections and classify it: 1. **Applicable** — the draft's genre/audience matches. Run the lens. 2. **Not applicable** — it doesn't match (e.g. `executive-audience` on a casual Slack message). Skip it and note it in one line: `executive-audience: skipped (not an exec-facing update)`. 3. **Unknown** — you can't tell the audience or purpose. Ask the user, or skip provisionally and say you did. For every **applicable** lens, run its detection and produce findings. A finding is: - **Where** — quote the offending phrase or sentence (short). - **What** — which lens flagged it and why. - **Ask or fix** — either a pointed question that gets the missing information, or a concrete suggestion. Prefer a **question** whenever the fix depends on facts only the author has (a number, a result, a reason). Be direct and specific. "This is vague" is itself vague — say *what* is undefined and *what* you need. ### Step 4 — Present the critique Organize by lens. For each **applicable** lens with findings, give the findings and a short list of **open questions** the author must answer. If an applicable lens finds nothing, say so in one line — the absence is useful signal. List any **skipped** lenses (and why) in one line so the coverage is transparent. End with a **scoped verdict** that only claims what the applied lenses can support: "No blocking findings under the lenses that applied," or "Not ready under these lenses until the open questions are answered." Do not declare a draft globally "ready to send" — lenses can't vouch for correctness, tone, or anything no lens covers. ### Step 5 — Optional rewrite Only if the user asked for a rewrite: after the critique, produce a revised draft that fixes what can be fixed *without* fabricating facts. Where a fix needs information the author has not supplied — a metric, date, name, owner, or outcome — insert `[NEEDS: the exact question]` at that spot instead of inventing something. Every fact in the rewrite must appear in the original draft or in an answer the author has given. Do not fill a `[NEEDS: …]` marker with a plausible guess. ## Stance and guardrails - **Never fabricate facts.** No invented numbers, results, dates, or names. When the draft lacks them, that is a finding, not something to paper over. - **Ask, don't guess.** The most valuable output is often a sharp question, not a rewrite. - **Be candid, not cruel.** Critique the writing, not the writer. Specific and honest beats gentle and vague. - **Respect the author's claims.** The coach challenges *how much is shown* and *how it is framed*, not *what the author believes*. - **Lenses are independent.** One lens knowing nothing about another is fine; the procedure composes them. Keep it that way. ## Adding a new lens Copy `lenses/_TEMPLATE.md` to `lenses/.md` and fill it in. It is picked up automatically on the next run — no change to `SKILL.md` needed. Keep each lens self-contained: one concern, its signals, its coaching move, its questions, and one before/after example.