Merge branch 'main' of https://git.lambwire.net/john/claude-engineering-plugin

plugins/compound-engineering/commands/essay-edit.md

@@ -69,7 +69,29 @@ For each paragraph, ask: does this paragraph earn its place? Identify any paragr
 
 Flag structural weaknesses. Propose specific fixes. If a section must be cut entirely, say so and explain why.
 
-## Phase 3: Line-Level Edit
+## Phase 3: Bulletproof Audit
+
+Before touching a single sentence, audit the essay's claims. The goal: every word, every phrase, and every assertion must be able to withstand a hostile, smart reader drilling into it. If you pull on a thread and the piece crumbles, the edit isn't done.
+
+**What bulletproof means:**
+Each claim is underpinned by logic that holds when examined. Not language that *sounds* confident — logic that *is* sound. GenAI-generated and VC-written prose fails this test constantly: it uses terms like "value," "conviction," and "impact" as load-bearing words that carry no actual weight. Strip those away and nothing remains.
+
+**The audit process — work through every claim:**
+
+1. **Identify the assertion.** What is actually being claimed in this sentence or paragraph?
+2. **Apply adversarial pressure.** A skeptical reader asks: "How do you know? What's the evidence? What's the mechanism?" Can the essay answer those questions — either explicitly or by implication?
+3. **Test jargon.** Replace every abstract term ("value," "alignment," "transformation," "ecosystem," "leverage") with its literal meaning. If the sentence falls apart, the jargon was hiding a hole.
+4. **Test causality.** For every "X leads to Y" or "because of X, Y" — is the mechanism explained? Or is the causal claim assumed?
+5. **Test specificity.** Vague praise ("a powerful insight," "a fundamental shift") signals the author hasn't committed to the claim. Make it specific or cut it.
+
+**Flag and fix:**
+- Mark every claim that fails the audit with a `[HOLE]` comment inline.
+- For each hole, either: (a) rewrite the claim to be defensible, (b) add the missing logic or evidence, or (c) cut the claim if it cannot be rescued.
+- Do not polish language over a logical hole. A well-written unsupported claim is worse than a clumsy honest one — it's harder to catch.
+
+**The test:** After the audit, could a hostile reader pick the piece apart? If yes, the audit isn't done. Return to step 1.
+
+## Phase 4: Line-Level Edit
 
 Now edit the prose itself. Work sentence by sentence through the full essay.
 
@@ -95,7 +117,7 @@ After editing each paragraph, ask: does this paragraph move? Does the last sente
 **Voice preservation:**
 At every step, check edits against the voice calibration from Phase 1. If an edit makes the prose cleaner but less recognizably *the author's*, revert it. The author's voice is not a bug to be fixed. It is the product.
 
-## Phase 4: Produce the Edited Essay
+## Phase 5: Produce the Edited Essay
 
 Write the fully edited essay. Not a marked-up draft. Not a list of suggestions. The complete, polished piece.
 
@@ -127,4 +149,6 @@ Line-level changes:
 Voice check: [passed / adjusted — note any close calls]
 
 Story verdict: [passes Saunders framework / key structural fix applied]
+
+Bulletproof audit: [X holes found and fixed / all claims defensible — note any significant repairs]
 ```

plugins/compound-engineering/commands/essay-outline.md

@@ -22,12 +22,17 @@ Do not proceed until you have a brain dump.
 
 Read the brain dump and locate the potential thesis — the single thing worth saying. Ask: would a smart, skeptical reader finish this essay and think "I needed that"?
 
-Play devil's advocate. This is the primary job. Look for:
+Play devil's advocate. This is the primary job. The standard is **bulletproof writing**: every word, every phrase, and every claim in the outline must be underpinned by logic that holds when examined. If a smart, hostile reader drills into any part of the outline and it crumbles, it hasn't earned a draft.
 
-- **Weak thesis** — Is this a real insight, or just a topic? A topic is not a thesis. "Remote work is complicated" is a topic. "Remote work didn't fail the office — the office failed remote work" is a thesis.
+This is not a high bar — it is the minimum bar. Most writing fails it. The profligate use of terms like "value," "conviction," "impact," and "transformation" is the tell. Strip away the jargon and if nothing remains, the idea isn't real yet.
+
+Look for:
+
+- **Weak thesis** — Is this a real insight, or just a topic? A topic is not a thesis. "Remote work is complicated" is a topic. "Remote work didn't fail the office — the office failed remote work" is a thesis. A thesis is specific, arguable, and survives a skeptic asking "how do you know?"
+- **Jargon standing in for substance** — Replace every abstract term in the brain dump with its literal meaning. If the idea collapses without the jargon, the jargon was hiding a hole, not filling one. Flag it.
 - **Missing payoff** — What does the reader walk away with that they didn't have before? If there's no answer, say so.
 - **Broken connective tissue** — Do the ideas connect causally ("and therefore") or just sequentially ("and another thing")? Sequential ideas are a list, not an essay.
-- **Unsupported claims** — Use outside research to pressure-test assertions. If a claim doesn't hold up, flag it and explore whether it can be rescued.
+- **Unsupported claims** — Use outside research to pressure-test assertions. For any causal claim ("X leads to Y"), ask: what is the mechanism? If the mechanism isn't in the brain dump and can't be reasoned to, flag it as a hole the draft will need to fill.
 
 **If nothing survives triage:** Say directly — "There's nothing here yet." Then ask one question aimed at finding a salvageable core. Do not produce an outline for an idea that hasn't earned one.
 
@@ -69,6 +74,18 @@ Produce the outline only after the idea has survived Phases 1 and 2.
 - Each bullet is a *beat*, not a topic — it should imply forward motion
 - Keep it short. A good outline is a skeleton, not a draft.
 
+**Bulletproof beat check — the enemy is vagueness, not argument:**
+
+Bulletproof does not mean every beat must be a logical proposition. A narrative beat that creates tension, shifts the emotional register, or lands a specific image is bulletproof. What isn't bulletproof is jargon and abstraction standing in for a real idea.
+
+Ask of each beat: *if someone drilled into this, is there something concrete underneath — or is it fog?*
+
+- "The moment the company realized growth was masking dysfunction" → specific, defensible, narratively useful ✓
+- "Explores the tension between innovation and tradition" → fog machine — rewrite to say what actually happens ✗
+- "Value creation requires conviction" → jargon with nothing underneath — either make it concrete or cut it ✗
+
+A beat that escalates tension, shifts the reader's understanding, or earns the next beat is doing its job — even if it doesn't make an explicit argument. The test is specificity, not defensibility. Can you say what this beat *does* without retreating to abstraction? If yes, it's bulletproof.
+
 **Write the outline to file:**
 
 ```
@@ -88,6 +105,7 @@ File: docs/outlines/YYYY-MM-DD-[slug].md
 
 Thesis: [one sentence]
 Story verdict: [passes / passes with fixes / nothing here]
+Bulletproof check: [all beats concrete and specific / X beats rewritten or cut]
 
 Key structural moves:
 - [Hook strategy]

plugins/compound-engineering/skills/john-voice/references/core-voice.md

@@ -12,6 +12,12 @@ From his own notes: "Good communication does not correlate with intelligence and
 
 **Peer-to-peer, not expert-to-novice.** John writes as a fellow traveler sharing what he figured out, not as a master instructing students. The posture is: "I worked this out, maybe it's useful to you." He never claims authority he doesn't have.
 
+**Say something real.** This is the principle that separates John's writing from most professional and AI-generated writing. Every claim, every observation, every phrase must have something concrete underneath it. If you drill into a sentence and there's nothing there — just the sensation of insight without the substance — it's wrong.
+
+The tell is vagueness. Abstract nouns doing the work of real ideas ("value," "alignment," "conviction," "transformation") are fog machines. They create the feeling of saying something without the risk of saying anything specific enough to be wrong. John takes that risk. He says what he actually means, in plain language, and accepts that a skeptical reader might disagree with him.
+
+This doesn't mean every sentence is a logical argument. A specific observation, a concrete image, a well-chosen detail — these are bulletproof without being argumentative. The test is: if someone asked "what do you mean by that, exactly?" could you answer without retreating to abstraction? If yes, the sentence earns its place.
+
 ## Sentence Structure
 
 **Mix short and long.** John's rhythm comes from alternating between longer explanatory sentences and abrupt short ones that land like punctuation marks.
@@ -26,7 +32,15 @@ Patterns he uses constantly:
 
 Example from his writing: "After vicariously touring catacombs, abandoned mines, and spaces so confined they make even the reader squirm. In the final chapter you visit a tomb for radioactive waste, the spent fuel cells of nuclear reactors. It feels like the final nail in the coffin, everything down here is also gloomy." → Then later: "But that's not the conclusion."
 
-**Avoid compound-complex sentences.** John rarely chains multiple clauses with semicolons or em-dashes. When a sentence gets long, it's because he's painting a scene, not because he's nesting logic.
+**Avoid compound-complex sentences.** John rarely chains multiple clauses with semicolons. When a sentence gets long, it's because he's painting a scene, not because he's nesting logic.
+
+**Never use em-dashes. This is a hard rule.**
+
+Em-dashes (—) are the single most reliable tell that a piece of writing was produced by AI, not by John. He almost never uses them. A piece that contains em-dashes does not sound like John wrote it.
+
+John does use asides frequently — but he uses **parentheses**, not em-dashes. Parenthetical asides are a signature move of his voice (they reward close readers and often carry his best jokes). When you are tempted to use an em-dash, use parentheses instead. If the aside doesn't warrant parentheses, break the sentence in two.
+
+The em-dash is not a stylistic flourish. It is an alarm bell. If it appears in output, rewrite before finishing.
 
 ## Vocabulary
 
@@ -128,5 +142,9 @@ The following patterns are the opposite of John's voice. If any of these appear
 - **Performative intelligence**: Using complex vocabulary where simple words work
 - **Lecturing tone**: Telling the reader what to think rather than showing them and letting them arrive there
 - **Emoji overuse**: John uses emoji sparingly and only in very casual contexts
+- **Em-dashes**: Never. This is the #1 AI writing tell. Use parentheses for asides. Use a period to end the sentence. Never use —.
 - **Exclamation points**: Rare. One per piece maximum in prose. More acceptable in Slack.
 - **Buzzwords**: "game-changer", "cutting-edge", "innovative" (without substance), "holistic"
+- **Vague claims masquerading as insight**: Sentences that sound like they mean something but dissolve under examination. "There's a real tension here between X and Y." "This gets at something fundamental about how we work." "The implications are significant." None of these say anything. Replace them with what the tension actually is, what the fundamental thing actually is, what the implications actually are.
+- **Abstract nouns as load-bearing walls**: "value," "conviction," "alignment," "impact," "transformation" — when these words are doing the primary work of a sentence, the sentence is hollow. John uses them only when they follow a concrete explanation, never as a substitute for one.
+- **Hedged non-claims**: "In some ways, this raises interesting questions about..." is not a sentence. It is a placeholder for a sentence. Write the sentence.