Files
claude-engineering-plugin/plugins/compound-engineering/skills/story-lens/references/saunders-framework.md
John Lamb fe3b1eee16 Merge upstream v2.67.0 with fork customizations preserved
Synced 79 commits from EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin upstream while
preserving fork-specific customizations (Python/FastAPI pivot, Zoominfo-internal
review agents, deploy-wiring operational lessons, custom personas).

## Triage decisions (15 conflicts resolved)

Keep deleted (7) -- fork already removed these in prior cleanups:
- agents/design/{design-implementation-reviewer,design-iterator,figma-design-sync}
  (no fork successor; backend-Python focus doesn't need UI/Figma agents)
- agents/docs/ankane-readme-writer (replaced by python-package-readme-writer)
- agents/review/{data-migration-expert,performance-oracle,security-sentinel}
  (replaced by *-reviewer naming convention: data-migrations-reviewer,
  performance-reviewer, security-reviewer)

Keep local (1):
- agents/workflow/lint.md (Python tooling: ruff/mypy/djlint/bandit; upstream
  deleted the file). Fixed pre-existing duplicate "2." numbering bug.

Restore from upstream (1):
- agents/review/data-integrity-guardian.md (kept for GDPR/CCPA privacy
  compliance angle not covered by data-migrations-reviewer)

Merge both (6) -- upstream structural wins layered with fork intent:
- agents/research/best-practices-researcher.md (upstream <examples> removal +
  fork's Rails/Ruby -> Python/FastAPI translations)
- skills/ce-brainstorm/SKILL.md (universal-brainstorming routing + Slack
  context + non-obvious angles + fork's Deploy wiring flag)
- skills/ce-plan/SKILL.md (universal-planning routing + planning-bootstrap +
  fork's two Deploy wiring check bullets)
- skills/ce-review/SKILL.md (Run ID, model tiering haiku->sonnet, compact-JSON
  artifact contract, file-type awareness, cli-readiness-reviewer + fork's
  zip-agent-validator, design-conformance-reviewer, Stage 6 Zip Agent
  Validation)
- skills/ce-review/references/persona-catalog.md (cli-readiness row + adversarial
  refinement + fork's Language & Framework Conditional layer; 22 personas total)
- skills/ce-work/SKILL.md (Parallel Safety Check, parallel-subagent constraints,
  Phase 3-4 compression + fork's deploy-values self-review row, with duplicate
  checklist bullet collapsed to single occurrence)

## Auto-applied (no triage needed)

- 225 remote-only files: accepted as-is (new docs, brainstorms, plans,
  upstream skills, tests, scripts)
- 70 local-only files: 46 preserved as-is (kieran-python, tiangolo-fastapi,
  zip-agent-validator, design-conformance-reviewer, essay/proof commands,
  excalidraw-png-export, etc.); 24 stayed deleted (dhh-rails-style,
  andrew-kane-gem-writer, dspy-ruby Ruby skills no longer needed)

## README updated

- Removed Design section (3 deleted agents)
- Removed deleted Review entries (data-migration-expert, dhh-rails-reviewer,
  kieran-rails-reviewer, performance-oracle, security-sentinel)
- Added new Review entries: design-conformance-reviewer, previous-comments-reviewer,
  tiangolo-fastapi-reviewer, zip-agent-validator
- Workflow: added lint
- Docs: replaced ankane-readme-writer with python-package-readme-writer

## Known issues (not introduced by merge decisions)

- 9 detect-project-type.sh tests fail on macOS bash 3.2 (script uses
  `declare -A` which requires bash 4+). Upstream regression in commit 070092d
  (#568). Resolution: install bash 4+ via `brew install bash` locally;
  upstream fix tracked separately.
- 2 review-skill-contract tests reference deleted agents (dhh-rails-reviewer,
  data-migration-expert). Pre-existing fork inconsistency, not new.

bun run release:validate: passes (46 agents, 51 skills, 0 MCP servers)
2026-04-17 17:24:41 -05:00

3.5 KiB

The Saunders Storytelling Framework

A distillation of George Saunders's craft principles for evaluating whether prose constitutes a high-quality story.


The Fundamental Unit: The Beat

Every moment in a story is a beat. Each beat must cause the next beat. Saunders calls causality "what melody is to a songwriter" — it's the invisible connective tissue the audience feels as the story's logic.

The test: are beats causal or merely sequential?

  • Sequential (anecdote): "this happened, then this happened"
  • Causal (story): "this happened, therefore this happened"

If beats are merely sequential, the work reads as anecdote, not story.


What Transforms Anecdote into Story: Escalation

"Always be escalating. That's all a story is, really: a continual system of escalation. A swath of prose earns its place in the story to the extent that it contributes to our sense that the story is still escalating."

Escalation isn't just raising stakes — it's irrevocable change. Once a story has moved forward through some fundamental change in a character's condition, you don't get to enact that change again, and you don't get to stay there elaborating on that state.

The story is a staircase, not a treadmill.


The "Is This a Story Yet?" Diagnostic

Stop at any point and ask: if it ended here, would it be complete?

Early on, the answer is almost always no — because nothing has changed yet. The story only becomes a story at the moment something changes irreversibly.

Precise test: change = story. No change = still just setup.


The "What Do We Know About This Character So Far?" Tool

Take inventory constantly. A reader's understanding of a character is always a running accumulation — and every beat should either confirm, complicate, or overturn that understanding.

The more we know about a person — their hopes, dreams, fears, and failures — the more compassionate we become toward them. This is how the empathy machine operates mechanically: specificity accrues, and accrued specificity generates care.


The Three E's

Three words that capture the full framework:

  1. Escalation — the story must continuously move forward through irrevocable change
  2. Efficiency — ruthlessly exclude anything extraneous to the story's purposes
  3. Expectation — what comes next must hit a Goldilocks level: not too obvious, not too absurd

The Moral/Technical Unity

Any story that suffers from what seems like a moral failing will, with sufficient analytical attention, be found to be suffering from a technical failing — and if that failing is addressed, it will always become a better story.

This means: when a story feels wrong emotionally or ethically, look for the craft problem first. The fix is almost always structural.


Summary: The Diagnostic Questions

Apply these in order to any piece of prose:

  1. Beat causality — Does each beat cause the next, or are they merely sequential?
  2. Escalation — Is the story continuously moving up the staircase, or running on a treadmill?
  3. Story-yet test — If it ended here, would something have irreversibly changed?
  4. Character accumulation — Is our understanding of the character growing richer with each beat?
  5. Three E's check — Is it escalating, efficient, and pitched at the right level of expectation?
  6. Moral/technical unity — If something feels off morally or emotionally, where is the technical failure?