feat(skills): add bulletproof writing principles across essay and voice skills

- essay-edit: add Phase 3 Bulletproof Audit — adversarial claim review before line editing, flags logical holes with [HOLE] markers
- essay-outline: add bulletproof beat check to Phase 1 triage and outline construction; framed around specificity not defensibility, preserving narrative structure
- john-voice/core-voice: add "Say something real" philosophy principle, hard no-em-dash rule with parentheses as the correct alternative, and Anti-John patterns for vague claims and abstract load-bearing nouns

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

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]
 ```