Article Writing: Clear Arguments without Invented Proof

What it does

ECC’s article writing source favors a specific artifact, observation or example before general explanation. It asks writers to clarify audience and purpose, outline one job per section and remove generic transitions and fabricated credibility. Voice comes from supplied examples or an existing voice profile; without one, the default is direct and practical. Technical guides, opinion essays and newsletters need different structures, so the workflow should follow the reader’s task rather than force every article into the same template. Original prose does not authorize invented anecdotes or unsupported personal experience.

When to use it

• Expand verified release notes into a practical technical guide.
• Turn an approved founder interview into a coherent opinion article.
• Edit a newsletter draft whose opening delays the useful information.

Step-by-step workflow

1. Identify the reader, desired outcome and publication constraints; collect factual sources and any approved voice examples.
2. Build an outline where each section advances one part of the argument and names the evidence it needs.
3. Draft from a concrete example, separating observed results, interpretation and advice as the explanation develops.
4. Check every factual claim, quotation and personal anecdote against supplied material; mark missing evidence rather than filling gaps.
5. Edit for voice, pacing and usefulness, then deliver a reviewable draft with remaining factual or publication decisions.

Example request

Write a 900-word guide for small engineering teams explaining our verified webhook retry fix. Use the attached incident timeline and code diff as the only evidence. Open with the duplicate-delivery example, explain the idempotency boundary and show what the regression check covers. Match the supplied practical voice sample. Do not invent downtime, customer quotes or personal lessons. Keep untested claims labeled and remove generic AI introductions. Deliver the draft with source notes and three factual questions for the reviewer; do not publish it.

Worked example

The notes say a duplicate event created two notifications during a sandbox reproduction. A weak draft might turn that into a production outage affecting customers, adding drama unsupported by the record. The reviewed workflow keeps the sandbox context and uses it to explain the mechanism. A section then shows how the event identifier is checked and where a database constraint supplies enforcement. The article closes with a concrete acceptance check instead of a generic engagement question. A factual reviewer can trace the example, patch and test without accepting a fictional story about the author.

What you get

An original structured draft, a source and claim checklist, unresolved factual questions and edits that reflect the intended audience and voice.

How to evaluate the result

• The opening gives the reader a concrete useful example.
• Every factual claim and quotation is traceable to supplied evidence.
• Each section advances the argument without generic padding or invented credibility.

What you need

Reliable source material, an identified audience and publication purpose. A supplied voice profile avoids repeated style analysis; referenced companion skills need separate availability checks.

Setup and activation

The reviewed ECC source provides an .agents skill layout. Consult the repository README for the chosen client, retain referenced supporting files and explicitly activate only the workflow needed. This catalogue read source files; it installed and executed nothing. Client compatibility depends on available tools and instruction loading, and was not runtime-tested here. Before installation, scan the exact source version, review permissions and use disposable non-sensitive examples.

Limits and considerations

A persuasive tone cannot repair missing evidence. Do not fabricate vulnerability stories, customer proof or first-person experiences. Matching a brand voice does not grant permission to publish, quote private interviews or reuse third-party images. Technical examples need their own correctness review.

Related workflows

• Use Market Research to resolve missing external evidence first.
• Use Content Engine to adapt the approved article into platform-specific drafts.

License and reuse

MIT in the selected SKILL.md and repository LICENSE. Preserve notices; external packages, services and example dependencies retain their own terms.

Further reading

• Reviewed skill at immutable commit
• Reviewed publisher README
• Reviewed MIT license