Skip to content This library is free, offered as dana. If it helps your work, donate here →
penguin tree ai
← back to libraryDonate here

This is one of 3,622 free prompts in the penguin tree ai library. Sign up once and the whole library opens, with new prompts by email.

open the library →

Story angle sharpener

Diagnoses whether a draft has a genuine argument or just a topic, stress-tests the thesis and lede, evaluates the evidence base, and recommends whether to sharpen the existing frame or reframe the piece entirely — with…

download .md

Purpose

Diagnose why a piece feels flat, unfocused, or forgettable — then determine whether it needs a sharper argument, a stronger evidence base, or a fundamentally different frame. Delivers a prompt-tested thesis, a rewritten lede, alternative angles, and a revision plan so the editor stops circling the draft and knows exactly what to fix.

When to Use

Invoke this skill when the user asks to:

  • Figure out why a draft feels flat, obvious, or "so what"
  • Sharpen the angle, thesis, or argument of a story
  • Test whether a lede is actually working
  • Decide between reworking a piece and reframing it from scratch
  • Find a fresher angle on a well-covered topic
  • Strengthen a piece before sending it back to a writer for revision

Inputs Required

Before starting, collect:

  • The draft or summary: Full text, or the working thesis plus lede and section headers
  • Publication context: Outlet or brand, section, and typical piece length
  • Target reader: Who this is for and what they already know about the topic
  • Intended takeaway: The one thing the writer wants the reader to walk away believing or doing
  • Coverage landscape: What else has been published on this topic recently, if known
  • Editorial goal: Traffic, authority-building, newsletter engagement, thought leadership, or SEO
  • Constraints: Deadline pressure, sources locked in, or angles that are off-limits

If coverage landscape or editorial goal is missing, assume authority-building for an informed reader and note the assumption.

Instructions

Step 1: Thesis vs. Topic Test

Determine whether the piece has an argument or just a subject.

  • Extract the implied thesis in one sentence. If you can't, that's the diagnosis — the piece is a topic, not a story.
  • Apply the contestability test: Could a smart, informed person disagree with this thesis? If no one could disagree, it's a truism, not an argument.
  • Apply the so-what test: If a reader accepted the thesis completely, what would change for them? If nothing, the stakes are missing.
  • Label the result: Genuine argument / Topic disguised as argument / Truism / Buried argument (a real thesis exists but is hidden in paragraph 6).

Step 2: Lede Stress-Test

Judge the opening on whether it earns the second paragraph.

  • Identify the lede type: anecdotal, data-driven, contrarian, scene-setting, question, or summary.
  • The scroll test: Does the first sentence give a reader a reason to keep reading, or does it warm up? Flag any throat-clearing before the actual entry point.
  • The specificity check: Does the lede open on something concrete (a person, a number, a moment, a claim) or on abstraction?
  • Thesis-lede alignment: Does the lede point toward the argument, or toward a different piece? Misalignment is the most common invisible defect.
  • Rate the lede: Publishable / Fixable / Rebuild with one sentence explaining why.

Step 3: Evidence Base Audit

Evaluate whether the argument is actually supported.

  • Map the load-bearing claims — the 2–4 assertions the whole piece rests on.
  • For each, note the evidence type present: primary reporting, data, expert source, example/anecdote, or assertion-only.
  • Flag assertion-only claims carrying argumentative weight — these are the piece's structural risks.
  • Assess evidence-to-claim proportion: Is the boldest claim backed by the weakest evidence? That inversion kills credibility.
  • Identify one piece of evidence that, if added, would most strengthen the argument.

Step 4: The Reframe Decision

Decide whether to sharpen or reframe — the core judgment call.

  • Sharpen when the argument is sound but underpowered: the thesis is real, evidence exists, the frame is right, but execution is soft. Fixable in a revision pass.
  • Reframe when the fundamental angle is wrong: the piece is well-executed against the wrong question, covers what's already saturated, or buries a more interesting story inside a duller one.
  • State the decision explicitly and give the single reason. Do not hedge between the two.

Step 5: Deliver the Sharpened Angle

Produce the concrete outputs the editor can act on.

  1. Rewritten thesis: One sentence — contestable, specific, with visible stakes.
  2. Rewritten lede: A 2–4 sentence opening that passes the scroll and specificity tests.
  3. Three alternative angles: Distinct frames on the same material, each with a one-line thesis and who it's for. At least one should be the "hidden better story" if it exists.
  4. Prioritized revision plan: 4–6 ordered actions, highest-leverage first, each specific enough to hand to a writer.

Output Format

  • Structure: Five diagnostic sections followed by the deliverables block
  • Length: 800–1,100 words
  • Format: Structured document — diagnostic labels and ratings up top, revision plan as a numbered list
  • Sections: Thesis vs. Topic → Lede Stress-Test → Evidence Base → Reframe Decision → Sharpened Angle (rewritten thesis, rewritten lede, three alternatives, revision plan)
  • Tone: Senior editor in a line-edit conversation — direct, specific, unsentimental about the draft but constructive about the fix

Quality Checklist

Before delivering output, verify:

  • [ ] The implied thesis is extracted as a single sentence (or its absence is named as the diagnosis)
  • [ ] The lede receives an explicit rating: Publishable / Fixable / Rebuild
  • [ ] The evidence audit names specific load-bearing claims and flags any assertion-only ones
  • [ ] The reframe decision is stated as a clear Sharpen-or-Reframe call — not both
  • [ ] The rewritten thesis passes the contestability and so-what tests
  • [ ] Exactly three alternative angles are provided, each with a one-line thesis and target reader

Notes

  • The most common finding is "topic disguised as argument" — a competent, readable piece that never commits to a claim. Naming it plainly is the highest-value move.
  • When you flag a buried argument in Step 1, the "hidden better story" alternative angle in Step 5 should usually surface it.
  • Resist inventing evidence in the rewritten lede — if the strongest opening requires reporting that isn't in the draft, flag it as a reporting task in the revision plan rather than fabricating a detail.
  • Reframe decisions are expensive for writers under deadline; when the constraint is a tight deadline, bias toward Sharpen unless the frame is genuinely broken.

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:

  1. Drag this file into a new chat, or copy and paste its contents
  2. 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