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-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]