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]