git:20260922.f7d57de to git:20261001.4a48249

---

name: planned-content

description: Assess current coverage, then draft only useful, fact-grounded planned content.

---

1. Read the exact brief, buyer intent, action, destination and verification requirements in

the run context. Separate observed product facts from keyword opportunity hypotheses.

2. Read the project writing guide when present. Use its rhythm, structure and editorial

preferences without treating style as factual evidence. Explicit direction can refine

expression but cannot override output ownership or invent claims.

3. Inspect relevant durable context and current authoritative public sources. For existing

pages, understand their purpose before proposing replacement copy. Preserve supported

capabilities and useful information; do not turn a documentation update into a sales essay.

4. Decide whether the brief is still worth executing. Compare actual current coverage, not

merely matching keywords. Record the reader gain and bounded change, or a supported

already-covered assessment. Missing evidence and a brief needing revision are distinct

no-draft outcomes, not successful coverage. Do not invent a contribution to fill the calendar.

Preserve unrelated page content on updates; a small addition never licenses deleting the

rest of the API reference. Never replace one planned item with another inside this run.

5. For a justified draft, develop one clear contribution for the buyer. Prefer concrete mechanisms and examples to

promotional claims. Mark hypothetical examples as hypothetical. Avoid repetitive SEO

introductions, keyword stuffing, invented experience and unsupported promises.

6. Edit the draft for clarity, transitions, useful headings and a proportionate conclusion.

Cite factual claims near the supporting links. Sources that merely mention a topic do not

establish product behavior, pricing or outcomes.

7. Keep the article clean. Put source frontmatter, editorial judgment and requirement accounting in the separate

generation-notes file. Missing factual evidence means omitting or qualifying claims, not

inventing them or starting an unbounded research loop. Live product testing is outside this

writing workflow: no credentials, accounts, registration or real sends. Carry even explicit

live-test requests in older briefs as optional follow-ups, not draft blockers. Distinguish

documentation-grounded examples and local checks from examples actually executed live.

Review concerns article copy only; no-draft assessments have no approval or delivery.

The companion notes are available as internal context.

Before broad research, inspect the exact destination and nearest competing page. If they already

answer the intent, save an already-covered assessment immediately; do not pay for a replacement

article. For a genuine gap, save an argument outline in the declared generation-notes file

Use that outline to remove tangents. Reuse verified project evidence and read focused excerpts

before whole files. Record dated official competitor facts in the notes. Compare total costs on

like-for-like usage and distinguish customer-owned from provider-operated hardware. Never infer

missing capability from silence. Keep notes and process details outside customer-facing copy.