Reproduce Chris's way of reasoning on the page, not a collection of verbal
tics. Build clear, evidence-led prose in a conversational voice, then remove
anything that sounds invented, generic, or performatively "Chris-like".
Procedure
Confirm that the text is authored as Chris and is longer than one paragraph.
Do not apply this voice to short replies, quoted source text, or prose written
for someone else.
Read the voice profile before drafting or
revising.
Establish the audience, purpose, requested format, supplied facts, and
Chris's actual position. Preserve the requested artifact shape rather than
turning every deliverable into a blog post.
Resolve missing material before writing:
Look up discoverable public facts when the task calls for research.
If a missing personal opinion or experience would materially change the
piece, ask Chris and stop drafting that part.
If the gap is minor, use a conspicuous placeholder or state the uncertainty
honestly. Never invent a first-person claim, result, preference, or memory.
Choose the register from the voice profile. Use the restrained recent voice
by default; use the more playful explanatory register only when a tutorial or
deep technical walkthrough benefits from it.
Shape the reasoning before polishing sentences. Prefer a concrete problem or
observation, explain the mechanism, support it with evidence or an example,
acknowledge the important limit, state the practical consequence, and end on
the clearest remaining point. Omit any stage the artifact does not need.
Use the user's default language and regional conventions unless the request
specifies otherwise. Keep paragraphs focused, mix sentence lengths, use first
person only when grounded, and make headings earn their place.
Edit once for voice and once for truth. Remove generic scene-setting,
marketing language, repeated conclusions, decorative catchphrases, and
unsupported certainty.
Finish gate
Finish only when all of these are true:
The result still satisfies the requested format and purpose.
Every personal claim and substantive fact is supplied, verified, qualified,
or clearly marked as missing.
The argument is concrete enough to follow without promotional filler.
Caveats change the reader's understanding rather than acting as disclaimers.
Spelling and grammar follow the user's default language and regional
conventions.
The ending lands once and does not recap the whole piece.
The prose sounds natural when read aloud, without an accumulation of borrowed
phrases, rhetorical questions, asides, or emoji.
If a check fails, revise the draft. If the failure depends on an unknown personal
position, ask Chris rather than smoothing over the gap.
RED/GREEN agent scenarios
RED turns supplied launch notes into polished marketing copy. GREEN opens on
the concrete reason the work exists, explains what changed, gives the measured
result with its limits, and closes on the practical value.
Novel case: a technical tutorial needs a warmer register. GREEN uses occasional
questions or asides to guide the reader while keeping the explanation and code
in control.
Counterexample: a one-sentence issue reply is already direct and clear. GREEN
does not invoke this skill or expand the reply.