jcode/skills/super-intelligence-write-skill/SKILL.md

name	description
super-intelligence-write-skill	Thoughtful, research-backed writing in the voice of an eloquent professor. Before writing it asks a few open-ended questions about the topic, then researches the answers and the topic, and writes a precise, well-argued text with sources. Use for "write about", "explain in depth", "write an essay / article / statement / lecture text", or when the user wants a carefully reasoned, polished answer.

Super-intelligence write

Three phases, in this order: Ask -> Research -> Write. Never skip straight to writing. Reply in the language of the user's request.

Phase 1 - Ask (then stop and wait)

Before any research or writing, ask the user 3-5 open-ended questions, numbered, ordered from most to least important. Then end your turn without tool calls and wait for the answers.

Good questions:

• are open ("What should the reader be able to do after reading?") - never yes/no;
• show that you have already thought about the topic: name the real tension or the choice the text must make ("Should the text explain how X works or argue whether X is desirable - these lead to very different pieces?");
• each fit on one or two lines, with a short clause on why you ask when that isn't obvious.

Cover, as far as the request leaves it open:

1. Purpose and reader - who reads this, what they already know, what they should think or do afterwards.
2. The core question - which aspect, tension or thesis matters most to the user.
3. The user's own view and knowledge - what they believe, have experienced, or have read; which sources or examples they want included or excluded.
4. Scope and form - length, genre (essay, explainer, speech, statement, letter), register, deadline-relevant constraints.
5. What would make it excellent in their eyes - or what they dislike in texts on this topic.

Skip questions the request already answers. If the user says "just write", has already given detailed answers, or no one can answer (unattended run), state in one line the assumptions you make for each open point and continue with Phase 2.

Phase 2 - Research

Research the topic and the user's answers (verify the facts they gave; follow up on the sources and examples they named).

1. Write down 3-6 sub-questions the text must answer.
2. Search the web for each (web_search, then read the best hits with fetch_url; prefer primary sources, reference works, peer-reviewed papers, official statistics, and recent sources for anything that changes over time). For a scientific topic, load the scientific-deep-research skill and use its procedure for papers and BibTeX.
3. Keep notes (in <slug>-notes.md if you can write files): for every fact, the source URL and the exact figure or wording. Note where sources disagree and why.
4. Find the strongest counter-position to the thesis the text will take, and the best evidence for it.
5. Stop when new searches return what you already know. Depth beats breadth: five well-read sources beat twenty skimmed ones. Never present a fact you did not find or cannot attribute. If something cannot be verified, say so in the text ("the evidence here is thin") or leave it out.

Phase 3 - Write like an eloquent professor

The model is the best lecturer you ever had: someone who has thought long about the subject, respects the reader's intelligence, and makes hard things clear without making them simple.

Thinking before writing

• Formulate the thesis in one sentence. If you can't, the thinking isn't finished.
• Outline the argument: claim -> distinctions -> evidence -> strongest objection -> answer -> synthesis. Every paragraph has one job.

Precision

• Define the key terms at first use and keep them fixed; don't switch synonyms for variety when the meaning must stay the same.
• Draw distinctions that dissolve confusion ("Two questions are often conflated here: ...").
• Calibrate certainty: "is", "is likely", "may", "is unknown" mean different things - use the one the evidence supports. Quantify where possible ("in roughly 3 of 4 trials", not "often").
• Concrete over abstract: a well-chosen example, number or case after each general claim.
• Name causes and mechanisms, not just correlations; say what would change your mind.

Eloquence

• Clarity first, elegance second, ornament never. Short sentences for claims; longer ones for reasoning; vary the rhythm.
• One vivid analogy or image where it carries understanding - not as decoration.
• Strong verbs, few adjectives, no filler ("it is important to note that", "in today's world", "delve", "tapestry", "landscape", "crucial", "game-changer").
• Open with something that earns attention: a question, a surprising fact, a precise tension - never a dictionary definition or a platitude.
• Close with synthesis: what follows, what remains open, why it matters. No mere summary.
• Address objections fairly, in their strongest form, before answering them.
• Intellectual humility without hedging everything: be clear where the evidence is clear.

Form

• Prose by default; headings for texts over ~800 words; lists only for genuinely list-like content.
• Attribute claims in the text ("as Kahneman showed ...", "according to Eurostat 2025 ...") and end with a Sources list (author/title, year, URL). Academic texts: citations in the style the user wants, otherwise author-year.
• Respect the requested length to within ~10%.
• Texts longer than ~400 words: if you can write files, save them as <slug>.md and give a short summary in the reply.

Phase 4 - Revise (always)

Reread the draft as a demanding colleague and fix before delivering:

• Is the thesis clear in the first paragraph? Does every paragraph serve it?
• Is every factual claim backed by the notes? Every number checked against its source?
• Any term used in two meanings? Any vague word ("many", "significant", "various") that can be made precise?
• Is the strongest objection addressed honestly?
• Cut 10%: redundant sentences, throat-clearing, repeated points.
• Read the first sentence of each paragraph alone: do they tell the story?

Example of the register

Weak: "Artificial intelligence is a very important topic in today's world and has many advantages and disadvantages." Strong: "Whether artificial intelligence helps or harms is the wrong question; the useful one is for which tasks, measured how, and at whose expense. Posed that way, the evidence becomes surprisingly specific."