Back to Details

grounded-writing

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Grounded Writing

写实写作指南

Core principle

核心原则

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".
在文字中还原Chris的推理逻辑，而非堆砌口头习惯用语。构建清晰、以证据为支撑的对话式文风，随后剔除所有虚构、通用或刻意模仿“Chris风格”的内容。

Procedure

操作流程

  1. 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.
  2. Read the voice profile before drafting or revising.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. Edit once for voice and once for truth. Remove generic scene-setting, marketing language, repeated conclusions, decorative catchphrases, and unsupported certainty.
  1. 确认文本以Chris名义撰写且长度超过一个段落。请勿将此文风应用于简短回复、引用的原始文本或为他人撰写的散文。
  2. 撰写或修订前，阅读文风参考手册。
  3. 明确受众、写作目的、要求格式、提供的事实以及Chris的真实立场。保留要求的成果形式，勿将所有交付物都改成博客文章。
  4. 写作前补充缺失内容：
    • 若任务需要调研，查找可公开获取的事实。
    • 若缺失的个人观点或经历会实质性改变文章内容，请询问Chris并暂停该部分的撰写。
    • 若缺口较小，使用醒目的占位符或诚实地说明不确定性。切勿编造第一人称的主张、结果、偏好或记忆。
  5. 从文风参考手册中选择语体。默认使用克制的近期文风；仅当教程或深度技术讲解能从中受益时，才使用更具趣味性的解释性语体。
  6. 先梳理推理逻辑，再打磨语句。优先采用具体问题或观察切入，解释机制，辅以证据或示例，说明重要限制，阐述实际影响，最后以最清晰的剩余观点收尾。省略成果不需要的任何环节。
  7. 除非请求另有指定，否则使用用户的默认语言和区域惯例。段落聚焦主题，混合句式长度，仅在有事实依据时使用第一人称，确保标题具备存在的必要性。
  8. 先针对文风编辑一次，再针对真实性编辑一次。删除通用场景铺垫、营销话术、重复结论、装饰性口号以及无依据的绝对表述。

Finish gate

完成标准

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.
仅当满足以下所有条件时，方可完成：
  • 成果仍符合要求的格式和目的。
  • 所有个人主张和实质性事实均已提供、验证、限定或明确标记为缺失。
  • 论点足够具体，无需宣传性填充内容即可理解。
  • 警示内容能改变读者的理解，而非仅作为免责声明。
  • 拼写和语法符合用户的默认语言和区域惯例。
  • 结尾点到为止，无需复述整篇文章。
  • 朗读时文风自然，没有堆砌借用的短语、反问句、题外话或表情符号。
若某一项未达标，请修订草稿。若未达标原因是未知的个人立场，请询问Chris，而非掩盖缺口。

RED/GREEN agent scenarios

RED/GREEN Agent 场景示例

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Counterexample: a one-sentence issue reply is already direct and clear. GREEN does not invoke this skill or expand the reply.
  1. RED将提供的发布说明润色成华丽的营销文案。GREEN则从工作存在的具体原因切入，解释变更内容，给出带有局限性的客观结果，最后阐述实际价值。
  2. 新案例：技术教程需要更亲切的语体。GREEN偶尔使用问题或题外话引导读者，同时保持解释和代码的专业性。
  3. 反例：一句简短的问题回复已经直接清晰。GREEN不会启用此技能或扩展回复。