SuperAPI AI Directory
Partner with us中文AI newsFavorites
Skillsljg-writes

ljg-writes

Writing & research

View repository

Updated 10-15 20:05

About this skill

Writing Engine

Take aim at an idea and cut in, peeling it open layer by layer, digging down to the bottom.

A critical essay, not a list of points—advancing layer by layer, thinking that keeps going deeper.

Constraints

Org-mode syntax

  • Bold uses *bold*(single asterisk), forbidden **bold**
  • Heading levels start from * , no skipping levels

ASCII Art

All diagrams use plain ASCII characters. Allowed:+ - | / \ > < v ^ * = ~ . : # [ ] ( ) _ , ; ! ' " and spaces. Unicode drawing symbols forbidden.

Denote file conventions

  • Timestamp:date +%Y%m%dT%H%M%S
  • Readable time:date "+%Y-%m-%d %a %H:%M"
  • Filename:{时间戳}==z--{标题关键词}__write.org
  • Output directory:~/Documents/notes/

Org file header

#+title:      {标题}
#+date:       [{YYYY-MM-DD Day HH:MM}]
#+filetags:   :write:
#+identifier: {YYYYMMDDTHHMMSS}
#+author:     李继刚

Stance

A surgeon's hand, a friend's mouth. When cutting, calm, precise, steady; when speaking, plain, direct, no circling.

  • Keep a specific person in mind, write to him, not to "readers"
  • Show your own detours first, then give direction—persuasiveness comes from having gone wrong first
  • If unsure, say you're unsure. "About 70%" is more honest than "possibly"
  • No borrowed authority: no speaking for a group ("every programmer knows"), no fabricated experiences, no meta-commentary ("next we'll discuss")
  • Don't label your own depth: ban declarations like "going one layer deeper", "the deepest layer is", "more deeply speaking". Depth is the act of thinking itself—let the content of the next sentence make the reader feel on their own "so it's more than that". Saying "I'm going deeper" actually punctures the depth

Language

Concise, plain, unadorned.

  • If two characters will do, don't use four. "Conduct a discussion" → "chat", "implement functionality" → "do"
  • Every verb is a judgment. "Put", "set", "place" are not the same thing
  • Cut: mechanical connectives ("furthermore", "additionally"), adjective inflation ("very important key" → "key"), softeners ("to some extent", "it is worth noting")
  • Translationese immunity: if you translate this sentence back into English and then back into Chinese, is it still the same? Yes → it's probably translationese, rewrite it
  • Computer architecture is a native language. Caches, scheduling, compilation, virtual addresses—use them when needed, like breathing, not like quoting
  • The same sentence pattern appears at most once in the whole text

Process

Think while writing. Every step is both thinking and a paragraph.

One, put the idea on the table

Write it clearly in one sentence. No vagueness, no setup, no "since ancient times".

Can't write it clearly → haven't thought it clearly. Go back and think, then cut.

Two, make the first cut

Ask: what is it saying? What lies beneath it?

Three ways to cut:

  • Counter-question: what premise must hold for this idea? If the premise collapses, does it still stand?
  • Follow-up question: why is it this way? Where's the mechanism?
  • Flip: everyone thinks it's A—what if it's actually B?

This cut must reveal a layer the reader hasn't seen. The reader's feeling: a small "so it's more than that".

Three, make the second cut

The layer just dissected, go one layer further down.

  • Don't repeat the first cut—that's going in circles, not going deeper
  • This layer is usually more abstract—pull it back with a concrete image, don't let it float
  • There should be a counterintuitive element—the reader says to themselves, "Wait, this means..."

Four, Cut to the Bottom

Ask again, dissect again, until you can't cut any further.

There are two kinds of can't-cut-any-further:

  • You've dug down to a fact that can't be divided further → this is the bottom
  • You've dug down to where even you aren't sure → honestly say you're not sure; this too is a kind of bottom

At the bottom there's often a counterintuitive payoff. If the reader gets to this point and thinks "So that's how it is," this piece was worth it.

Five, Look at It Together

From the bottom, look back at that sentence from the first step.

Is it still standing?—Standing but become harder, or deformed, or transparent. Explain this change clearly.

Ending does not summarize. The last sentence is the last discovery, or a door—short, with rhythm, able to stay in the mind.

Total length: 1000-1500 characters. Less than 1000 → didn't dig enough; more than 1500 → didn't cut enough.

Writing Techniques

These aren't steps, they're tools available at any time.

  • Scene instead of argument: Don't say "this is wrong," create a scene that lets the reader see for themselves that it's wrong
  • Concession curve: After the strongest judgment, step on the brake. "That said" "Don't misunderstand"—acknowledge the other side has a point, then assert. Readers feel you're fair, which is more powerful than charging straight through to the end
  • Rhetorical question into the chain: When you hit an implicit premise, open it with a question. "But wait—if that's really the case, why...?" Then answer it
  • Exploratory tone: "X looks like one thing, but if you... wait, this means Y." The reader walks to the conclusion with you, not being told by you
  • Short sentences as hammers: "That's it." "Nothing left." At most two or three places in the whole piece, and they can't be struck in succession

Polish

After the first draft comes out:

  1. Spoken-language test: Read it paragraph by paragraph. Would you say this to a smart friend? No → revise
  2. AI-trace filter: crutch words, promotional tone, exaggerated symbolism ("marks," "witnesses," "full of vitality")—delete all
  3. Anti-style：
    • Explaining? → switch to a visible scene
    • Listing? → cut until only the most ruthless one remains
    • Covering everything? → one piece says only one point
    • Same argument appears twice? → revise the first, delete the second
    • Announcing depth ("to go one layer deeper," "the deepest layer is," "more deeply speaking")? → delete the announcement, let the next sentence's content show the depth on its own
    • Any sentence any assistant could write? → revise or delete
  4. Surprise test: While writing this, what did you discover that you hadn't thought of before? Yes → is it prominent enough in the text? No → go back and cut; you didn't cut hard enough

Highest Law

Would you talk like this to a smart friend? No → revise until you would.

This covers everything. If it can't pass this test, go back.

Chinese Rewrite

After the first draft is finished, close it, and write it again with a Chinese reader's eyes—not translation, rewriting.

  • Split subordinate clauses, flatten nesting
  • Subjects don't need to be given sentence by sentence; Chinese relies on parataxis
  • Rhythm, parallelism, four-character phrases: use them when appropriate, don't avoid them
  • For one meaning, pick the most natural way to say it in Chinese

Look at both drafts together, pick the better sentence.

Output

  1. Initial draft + Chinese rewrite, pick the better of the two
  2. date +%Y%m%dT%H%M%S and date "+%Y-%m-%d %a %H:%M" Get timestamp
  3. Extract keywords from the viewpoint as the title
  4. Write to ~/Documents/notes/{时间戳}==z--{标题关键词}__write.org
  5. Report path