/six-pager -- Amazon-style Narrative Memo and PRFAQ
Generate decision documents in the format Amazon has used since June 9, 2004 — when Bezos banned PowerPoint and required every meeting to open with a written narrative.
This skill produces the document. It does not replace the discipline. The original Amazon practice takes a week (draft → review → set aside → edit → final). The skill compresses the structure but preserves the prose-quality bar.
Why This Works
Three independent traditions converge on a single principle: writing is the thinking instrument, not the documentation of it.
- Bezos (Amazon, 2004): "There is no way to write a six-page narratively structured memo and not have clear thinking."
- Strunk (1918, restated by E.B. White 1959): "Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts." (Rule 17)
- Anthropic (Claude Code Best Practices): "For every line, ask: If I removed this, would Claude make a mistake? If not, remove it."
Same rule, three scales: line, sentence, instruction. This skill enforces all three.
When to Use This vs Sibling Skills
| Skill | Use For | Mode |
|---|
| Decisions, strategy, status, "should we?" with stakes | Narrative memo, 6 sections, hard 6-page cap |
| Product / feature / launch ideas where customer outcome is the question | Press release + 2 FAQs, work backwards from launch |
| a long-form writing/voice skill | Prose essays, narrative, sensory writing | Long-form drafting, not decision-doc structure |
| Open question with multiple valid answers | Multi-agent deliberation, not document generation |
| Stress-test a finished artifact (including a six-pager!) | Single-critic attack mode |
Natural pairing: Generate the document with
, then stress-test with
, then deliberate the recommendation with
. That's the full Amazon-style decision pipeline.
Arguments
- Argument 1 (required): The topic, draft, or file path. One of:
- A short topic statement:
"Should we migrate the API to cursor-based pagination?"
- A path to an existing draft:
docs/pagination-decision-draft.md
- A pasted block of context
- Mode flag (optional): (default for decisions) or (for launches). If omitted, the skill auto-classifies and asks to confirm.
- : Adds a 20-30 minute "silent read" simulation to the output — produces an annotated version with margin questions a senior reviewer would write.
- : Skips structural generation; treats the input as an existing draft and runs only the Strunk + Anthropic prose audit. Useful for cleaning up an in-flight document.
Procedure
Phase 1: SCOPE
- Parse flags from .
- Classify the input:
- Topic — short statement, no draft. Generate from scratch.
- File path — existing draft. Read it; treat as starting point.
- Pasted text — treat as starting context.
- If mode flag is missing:
- Auto-classify: input contains "launch" / "ship" / "announce" / "new product" / "release" → suggest . Otherwise → suggest .
- Confirm with the user before proceeding.
- Confirm scope back to the user in one sentence: "Producing [memo|prfaq] for [topic]. [Optional: --silent-read enabled.]"
Phase 2: DRAFT
Mode: (6-pager)
Generate the six canonical sections. Each section has a specific purpose and a strict prose discipline:
- Introduction (~0.5 page) — What is this document? Who is the audience? What is the ask? Frame the decision in one paragraph.
- Goals (~0.5 page) — Specific, measurable outcomes. Each goal must be verifiable. Numbers required where possible.
- Tenets (~0.5 page) — The principles this proposal optimizes for. No qualifiers (per Strunk's "avoid leeches" reminder). Tenets are unhedged commitments. Format:
1. [Tenet name]: [single declarative sentence].
- State of the Business (~1.5 pages) — Current data. Honest. Concrete numbers, named systems, dated facts. Apply Strunk Rule 16 (definite, specific, concrete) ruthlessly.
- Lessons Learned (~1 page) — What did past attempts teach? What is different this time? Each lesson cites a specific past event or experiment, not abstract principles.
- Strategic Priorities (~2 pages) — The recommended action and rationale. Specific milestones, owners, timelines.
- Appendix (unlimited) — Visuals, supporting data, alternative analyses considered and rejected (with reasons).
(V2) Premortem (required in Strategic Priorities or the Appendix). Assume it is 12 months later and this decision failed. Write the 3 most likely causes, working backward from the failure. This is forward-looking risk-finding that "Lessons Learned" (backward-looking) structurally misses — Kahneman's single highest-value decision technique, and it pairs with the verification: each premortem cause should map to a thing you'll monitor. Not generic "risks" — concrete failure scenarios.
Hard constraint: sections 1-6 combined must fit in 6 pages of 11pt body text. The skill renders a page count and warns if over.
Mode: (Press Release + FAQs)
Generate three sub-documents. Work backwards — write the press release first, as if the product already shipped.
- Press Release (~1 page) — Customer-facing language. Benefit-led. Dated for the (hypothetical) launch day. Format follows Amazon's internal PR conventions:
- Headline (one line, customer-outcome-oriented)
- Sub-headline (one line, who-it's-for + key-benefit)
- Lede paragraph (city, date, "Today X announced Y...")
- Problem paragraph (what was hard before this product existed)
- Solution paragraph (how the product solves the problem)
- Customer quote (fictional but realistic)
- Internal quote (from the team, on why this matters)
- Call to action / availability
- External FAQ (~1 page) — Questions a journalist or customer would ask:
- What is this?
- How is it different from [obvious alternative]?
- How much does it cost?
- When can I get it?
- What does it not do?
- Internal FAQ (~1-2 pages) — Questions Amazon-style leadership would ask:
- Why now?
- What does success look like? (specific metrics, specific dates)
- What are the dependencies?
- What is the failure mode?
- What are we choosing not to build?
- What would cause us to kill this?
The PRFAQ test: if you can't write a credible press release, the product doesn't exist yet — not in the form that matters.
Phase 3: CONSTRAIN
After Phase 2 produces a draft, measure it:
bash
# rough page count: assume 450 words/page at 11pt
WORDS=$(wc -w < draft.md)
PAGES=$(echo "scale=1; $WORDS / 450" | bc)
If over budget:
- For : identify the longest section, propose 30pct cuts that preserve load-bearing content
- For : identify whichever FAQ sub-section ran long; propose merging or trimming questions
Never silently truncate. Always show the user what's being proposed for cuts and why.
Phase 4: AUDIT (Strunk + Anthropic)
Run the prose-quality audit on the draft. Each finding cites the rule:
| Check | Rule | Action |
|---|
| Passive voice | Strunk R14 | Flag every passive construction; suggest active rewrite |
| Vague language | Strunk R16 | Flag every "improvements," "various," "some," "many" without a number; demand specificity |
| Needless words | Strunk R17 + Anthropic removability | Flag wordy phrases ("in order to" → "to"; "due to the fact that" → "because") |
| Qualifiers | E.B. White's "leeches" reminder | Flag every "rather," "very," "little," "pretty," "quite," "somewhat" — propose deletion |
| Parallel construction | Strunk R19 | Flag inconsistent grammatical forms in lists / tenets / goals |
| Sentence-length monotony | Strunk R18 | Flag stretches of 4+ sentences within 5 words of each other; propose variation |
| Topic sentence | Strunk R13 | Flag any paragraph that buries its claim under setup. Lead each paragraph with its point — one paragraph = one step in the argument. The core narrative-memo discipline |
| Overstatement | E.B. White, do not overstate | Flag carefree superlatives and unhedged hype ("massive," "revolutionary," "huge," "game-changing"). A single one puts the reader on guard and taints the rest — demand the number or cut |
| Tenets with hedges | Bezos canon | Tenets are commitments. "We try to optimize for X" → "We optimize for X" or cut |
| Removability test | Anthropic | For each paragraph: would removing it cause the reader to make a wrong decision? If not, cut. |
Produce a structured audit report:
## Prose Audit (Strunk + Anthropic)
**Findings:** N critical, M important, K nit
### Critical (block the document)
- Line 23: passive voice in Strategic Priorities ("It was decided that...") → "We decided to..."
- Line 47: vague Goal ("improve performance") → demand a number
- Tenet 3 hedges ("We strive to be customer-obsessed") → cut "strive to" or cut the tenet
### Important (fix in next pass)
- 4 sentences in a row of 18-22 words in State of Business → vary
- Parallel-form break in Goals: 3 noun-phrase goals + 1 verb-phrase goal
- State of Business ¶2 buries its claim in the final sentence → lead the paragraph with it
- Overstatement in Introduction ("a massive, game-changing opportunity") → name the number or cut
### Nit
- "in order to" appears 3 times → "to"
- "various improvements" → name them or cut
Phase 5: PRESENT
Show the user:
- Final document (or draft with audit annotations if )
- Page count vs budget
- Audit summary (count of critical/important/nit findings)
- Side-by-side: original draft vs proposed rewrites for any audit findings
Ask: "Apply the audit fixes? (yes / partial / no)"
If yes: apply fixes in place (surgical Edits if input was a file; show new full document otherwise).
If partial: walk through each fix individually.
If no: deliver the unaudited draft with a note that audit was skipped.
Phase 6: SAVE
Default save path: alongside the input file (if file input) or
<cwd>/six-pager-<topic-slug>-<YYYY-MM-DD>.md
.
If
was used, also produce
with margin questions in HTML comments or callout blocks.
The Silent-Read Simulation ()
The original Amazon meeting protocol: distribute the document at the start of the meeting (NOT pre-read), 20-30 minutes of silent reading with pens out, then discussion anchored to specific page/line annotations.
When
is enabled, after generating the document the skill simulates the silent read by producing a second pass:
For each section, generate 2-4 questions a senior reviewer would write in the margin. Examples:
- "How confident is the 23pct number? Is this measured or estimated?"
- "Tenet 2 contradicts Tenet 4 — which wins when they conflict?"
- "Lesson Learned #3 says the prior attempt failed because of X. What evidence?"
- "Strategic Priority #1 has no owner named."
This catches the "writer thinks it's clear; reader doesn't" failure mode before the actual meeting.
Quality Bar
A six-pager passes if every check is true. Otherwise iterate.
- Page count ≤ 6 (memo) or correct sub-document length (prfaq)
- Every Goal has a number or specific verifiable outcome
- Every Tenet is a declarative commitment with no qualifiers
- State of Business cites at least 5 specific numbers / named systems / dated facts per page
- Strategic Priorities name at least one owner per priority
- Strunk audit: zero critical findings (passive voice, vague Goals, hedged Tenets); important findings acceptable with rationale
- The "what would cause us to kill this?" question (PRFAQ Internal FAQ) has a real, specific answer — not "if performance suffers"
Gotchas
- Do not exceed 6 pages. The constraint IS the value. If it doesn't fit, the thinking isn't done.
- Do not pad State of Business with backstory. Current data only. History belongs in Lessons Learned.
- Do not hedge Tenets. A Tenet with "try to" or "strive to" is not a Tenet.
- Do not generate fake numbers. If the Goal needs a metric and the user hasn't supplied one, ask. Generic placeholders ("X%") are not acceptable.
- Do not confuse Goals with Tenets. Goals are outcomes (measurable). Tenets are principles (commitments). Both are needed; conflating them muddles thinking.
- Do not skip the audit. Phase 4 is not optional. The whole point is prose discipline plus structure.
- Do not auto-save. Phase 6 confirms with the user where to write.
- Do not invoke this for prose articles. Use a dedicated long-form writing/voice skill instead — this skill is for decision docs, not essays.
Changelog
V2 (2026-05-27)
Optimized via
(outcome research: decision-memo efficacy + decision science). six-pager was already strong; this is a focused, non-duplicative add:
- Required premortem in memo mode — forward-looking "assume it failed, why?" failure analysis, each cause tied to a verification signal. Closes the gap that "Lessons Learned" (backward-looking) leaves open. Kahneman's highest-value decision technique; same decision-science line that informed council-review V2.
- Outcome target: memos that surface the killer risk before the decision, not after. Sources: Kahneman (premortem); Amazon narrative practice (silent read, customer-back); grounded in the same decision-science line (premortem, mediating assessments).
References
Bezos / Amazon canon:
Strunk & White canon:
- Strunk, William Jr. & White, E.B. — The Elements of Style, 4th edition (Pearson Allyn & Bacon, 2000)
- Public-domain text of Strunk's 1918 original: Bartleby — The Elements of Style
Anthropic prose-discipline:
Cognitive-style background:
- Tufte, Edward — The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint (2003) — the case against bullet-points
Testing
This is a prompt-only skill. The shipped
asserts the structural contract. To verify behavior end-to-end:
- Pick a real decision:
"/six-pager Should we migrate the API to cursor-based pagination?"
- Verify all 6 sections generated, page count ≤ 6, audit run with findings
- Pick a launch idea:
"/six-pager prfaq Acme AI assistant public launch"
- Verify press release + 2 FAQs generated, "what would cause us to kill this?" has a real answer
- Run on an existing draft: verify only the audit fires, no new structure generated
- Run : verify margin questions are produced for each section