Purpose
Produce a complete editorial frame for a consequential article — the central question, the claim ladder, the evidence map, the steel-manned opposition, and the sourcing standard for each claim — before drafting begins. Solves the most expensive editorial failure: articles that read well but rest on a weak question, motivated reasoning, or unsourced assertions.
When to Use
Invoke this skill when the user asks to:
- Frame an article around a policy, science, or ideas-based question before drafting
- Decide what an article is actually arguing versus what it's describing
- Pressure-test a thesis against the strongest available counterevidence
- Set claim-by-claim sourcing standards for a story with contested facts
- Convert a vague pitch or "I want to write about X" into a defensible editorial frame
- Diagnose why a draft feels persuasive but under-evidenced
Inputs Required
Before starting, collect:
- Topic or working thesis: The subject or the argument the writer wants to make (1–3 sentences)
- Publication type: Policy / science / general ideas / longform explanatory
- Intended takeaway: What the reader should believe or do differently after reading
- Existing evidence on hand: Studies, datasets, interviews, or reports the writer already has
- Target length: Approximate word count of the finished piece
- Audience prior: What the target reader likely already believes about this topic
- Deadline/rigor tradeoff: Investigative depth or timely commentary
If the working thesis is a topic rather than a claim, treat the first step's output as the primary deliverable and flag that no article should proceed until a consequential question is locked.
Instructions
Step 1: Define the Consequential Question
Convert the topic into a single question the article answers. Test it against four criteria:
- Consequential: If the answer is X versus Y, does something meaningful change — a policy, a resource allocation, a belief that drives action? Reject questions where both answers lead to the same behavior.
- Tractable in the length: Can the available evidence actually move the reader toward an answer in the word count? Split questions that are too big.
- Contested or non-obvious: If the informed reader already agrees, there's no article. Locate the live disagreement.
- Falsifiable framing: The question should have a shape where evidence could change the answer — not a values-only dispute disguised as a factual one.
Deliver the locked question in one sentence, plus a one-sentence statement of why it matters now.
Step 2: Build the Claim Ladder
Decompose the thesis into an ordered chain of claims the argument depends on. For each:
- State the claim as a single declarative sentence
- Label its type: empirical (settled by data), causal (X drives Y), normative (a values judgment), or predictive (a forecast)
- Mark the load-bearing claims — the ones that, if false, collapse the whole piece
The article's rigor is set by its weakest load-bearing claim. Flag any load-bearing claim that is currently unsupported by the evidence on hand.
Step 3: Map the Evidence Base
For each load-bearing claim, assess the evidence terrain:
- Strength of best evidence: RCT / meta-analysis / observational / expert consensus / single study / anecdote / none yet
- Effect size and uncertainty: Not just "studies show" — direction, magnitude, and confidence interval where available
- Base rate context: What's the relevant baseline the reader needs to interpret the number honestly?
- Publication and selection bias risk: Is the visible evidence skewed by what gets published or funded?
- What would change the picture: The finding that, if it existed, would weaken the claim
Distinguish "the evidence supports this" from "no one has looked." Name the gaps explicitly.
Step 4: Steel-Man the Opposition
Write the strongest version of the counterargument — the one a smart, informed skeptic would make, not a strawman. For each major objection:
- State it in its most persuasive form
- Identify whether it attacks an empirical, causal, or normative claim
- Specify how the article will address it: concede and scope down, rebut with evidence, or acknowledge as genuine uncertainty
An article that never names its best counterargument is advocacy, not journalism. Every load-bearing claim gets at least one steel-manned challenge.
Step 5: Set Claim-by-Claim Sourcing Standards
For each claim in the ladder, specify the sourcing bar required to publish it:
- Primary source required (dataset, paper, on-record expert) vs. secondary citation acceptable
- Number and independence of sources needed for contested empirical claims
- Attribution rule: on-record, on-background, or documentary
- Numbers discipline: every statistic gets a source, a date, and a base rate; no orphaned percentages
- Correction exposure: which claims carry the highest risk of a needed correction, and how to hedge or verify them
Step 6: Specify the Frame and Structure
Recommend the article shape that fits the frame:
- Opening move: How to establish the question and its stakes without burying the lede or overclaiming
- Concession placement: Where the counterargument lives — early concessions build credibility for a strong later claim
- Uncertainty handling: How to signal calibrated confidence (avoid both false balance and false certainty)
- Landing: What the reader is entitled to conclude given the evidence — no stronger, no weaker
Output Format
- Structure: Six labeled sections in order; claim ladder and evidence map as tables; steel-man and sourcing standards as structured bullets
- Length: 1,000–1,400 words
- Format: Structured editorial brief — tables for the claim ladder and evidence map, prose for the question and frame recommendations
- Sections: Consequential Question → Claim Ladder → Evidence Map → Steel-Manned Opposition → Sourcing Standards → Frame & Structure
- Tone: Rigorous editor — direct, calibrated, allergic to overclaiming; treats intellectual honesty as the highest editorial value
Quality Checklist
Before delivering output, verify:
- [ ] The consequential question is a single sentence that passes all four criteria (consequential, tractable, contested, falsifiable framing)
- [ ] Every load-bearing claim is explicitly marked and matched to its evidence strength
- [ ] At least one steel-manned counterargument exists for each load-bearing claim
- [ ] Every empirical claim in the ladder has a specified sourcing standard — none left unassigned
- [ ] Evidence gaps are named explicitly, distinguishing "refuted" from "unstudied"
- [ ] The recommended landing does not claim more than the evidence map supports
Notes
- The most common failure this skill catches is a compelling thesis resting on a single load-bearing causal claim with only observational support — flag it before drafting, not after.
- For policy pieces, base rates are usually the difference between honest and misleading; insist on them for every headline statistic.
- If the writer resists steel-manning the opposition, that resistance is itself a signal the frame is advocacy — say so plainly.
- Timely commentary can carry more uncertainty than investigative work, but it must label that uncertainty rather than hide it; adjust the sourcing bar to the rigor tradeoff supplied, never below the honesty floor.
How to use this skill
This file is a Claude Code skill in Anthropic's standard format — markdown with YAML frontmatter at the top.
Installing in Claude Code:
~/.claude/skills/<folder-name>/SKILL.md— auto-loads in every session anywhere on your machine (recommended for skills you'll use across multiple projects)<your-project>/.claude/skills/<folder-name>/SKILL.md— auto-loads only when working in that project (recommended for project-specific skills)
Restart Claude Code or open a new session to register.
Using in Claude.ai, ChatGPT, Gemini, or other AI tools:
- Drag this file into a new chat, or copy and paste its contents
- Send your task or request as your next message — the AI will apply the skill where it fits
For Claude Code skill details: https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/claude-code/skills