rd-writing · git:20260726.db4ec36 · 2026-07-26 · sha256 15175509b074a8eb
rd-writing git:20260726.db4ec36A
Immutable. This exact content never changes and is served at /api/v1/blob/15175509b074a8eb.
--- name: rd-writing description: >- Write source-backed technical articles, white papers, research or fact-check reports, decision briefs, and other professional explanatory documents. Use when verified evidence must be shaped for a real audience and publication or decision purpose without losing uncertainty, counterarguments, or traceability. Do not use for PRDs, architecture selection, detailed design, standards, or review. --- # rd-writing Turn verified material into an audience-ready professional document whose claims, logic, and evidence remain auditable. ## Deliverables - Technical article, explanatory article, or technical white paper - Research synthesis or fact-check report - Decision brief, position paper, or evidence-led recommendation memo - Claim-source map and unresolved evidence notes when material ## Select an Output Mode Read only the reference needed for the target: | Mode | Target | Reference | |------|--------|-----------| | Technical article | technical article, explanatory article, technical white paper | [technical-article.md](references/technical-article.md) | | Evidence report | research synthesis, fact-check report, evidence review | [evidence-report.md](references/evidence-report.md) | | Decision brief | decision memo, position paper, executive technical brief | [decision-brief.md](references/decision-brief.md) | ## Common Workflow ### 1. Pin the Writing Contract - Confirm audience, decision or publication purpose, scope, genre, length, tone, date boundary, and required citation style - Identify supplied source material, claims that require current verification, and any editorial or organizational constraints - Preserve established terminology, names, dates, quotations, numbering, and traceability - If the user supplies a desired conclusion, treat it as a proposition to test rather than a fact to defend ### 2. Establish the Claim Architecture - State the central question and candidate conclusion - Build a claim hierarchy: central claim, supporting claims, evidence, counterclaims, limitations, and implications - Separate fact, estimate, inference, prediction, opinion, and value judgment - Remove claims that are irrelevant to the document purpose or unsupported by available evidence ### 3. Verify Before Drafting - Inspect supplied and project sources first; use `rd-research` for volatile, disputed, external, or decision-critical claims - Resolve timeline, version, jurisdiction, units, denominator, quotation context, and source ownership where material - Record conflicts and evidence gaps; do not let polished prose conceal uncertainty ### 4. Draft for the Audience - Lead with the answer or decision relevance unless the genre requires another structure - Use the minimum sufficient structure and explain specialized terms only when audience knowledge requires it - Present the strongest material counterargument fairly before rebutting it - Keep evidence close to the claim it supports and distinguish sourced facts from the author's analysis - Use tables only for genuine comparison and diagrams only when they clarify structure, flow, or causality ### 5. Edit and Verify - Check factual accuracy, citation entailment, chronology, causal logic, internal consistency, terminology, and numerical units - Remove promotional, slogan-like, template-like, repetitive, and unsupported language - Confirm the conclusion does not exceed the evidence and that limitations are specific rather than boilerplate - Preserve a claim-source map for high-impact or contested documents ## Tool Selection - Use local document and repository inspection before external retrieval - Use `rd-research` to build or refresh the evidence package; do not duplicate a deep research workflow inside drafting - Use document-format Skills for `.docx`, PDF, presentation, or spreadsheet artifacts after the content is stable - Use language-polish Skills only after factual and argumentative integrity is established ## Quality Gates - [ ] Audience, purpose, scope, mode, and date boundary are explicit - [ ] Central and supporting claims are evidence-backed and logically connected - [ ] Facts, inferences, estimates, predictions, opinions, and examples are distinguishable - [ ] Strong counterarguments and material limitations are represented fairly - [ ] Citations support the adjacent claims and volatile facts carry time/version context - [ ] Tone is professional and specific, without promotional or template filler - [ ] Final conclusion stays within the evidence boundary ## Out of Scope - Use `rd-requirement`, `rd-solution`, `rd-design`, or `rd-specification` when that structured deliverable is the actual target - Use `rd-review` when the primary task is an independent verdict on an existing document - Do not invent sources, quotations, data, examples presented as real, dates, or causal certainty - Do not optimize persuasion by hiding counterevidence, uncertainty, or conflicts of interest