Deep Content Writer v2

A structured system for writing content that readers actually finish. v2 improvement: Depth-first, structure-second.

The structure keeps readers reading. The depth makes them share.

Core Belief

A great article is NOT a template filled with words. It's a specific claim backed by specific evidence, told through story.

Depth comes from three things, in this order:

1. Specific research (studies, data, names, dates)
2. Cross-domain connections (linking this topic to an unexpected field)
3. Structural clarity (making all the above easy to read)

The 6-part arc only solves #3. The skill MUST solve #1 and #2 first.

Phase 0: Knowledge Reconnaissance (MANDATORY)

Before writing a single word, do this:

Step 0a: Deep Dive (self + search)

Ask yourself (the agent/LLM):

• "What do I ALREADY know in my training data about this topic?"
• List 3-5 concrete studies, experiments, historical events, or named researchers related to this topic
• If you can't name specifics, search the web now

Then search the web for:

• Recent studies on this topic (last 5 years preferred)
• Counterintuitive data points — numbers that surprise people
• Named researchers or institutions doing work in this area
• Real-world case studies with specific companies, people, or events
• Public debates or controversies around this topic

Step 0b: Find the ANTI-Intuition

Every good article challenges a common belief. Find it:

If you can't find at least ONE anti-intuition, the article doesn't need to exist yet. Wait, research more.

Step 0c: Specificity Check

For every major claim you plan to make, ask:

Claim: "People are bad at estimating their own competence."
→ Specific? No.
→ Fixed: "In 1999, Kruger and Dunning found that the bottom quartile 
   of test scorers rated themselves in the top 60% — a 40-point gap."
→ Now it has names, year, and a number. Ready to write.

Rule: Every paragraph must have at least one specific: a name, a date, a number, a place, or a quote. If a paragraph has none, it's filler — cut or research it.

Phase 1: Writing — The 6-Part Arc

Once you have your research assembled, structure the article:

1. HOOK — Open with a concrete, relatable moment

• A specific person in a specific situation
• A surprising statistic
• A short anecdote

Don't say: "Communication is hard." Do say: "A Stanford researcher once asked people to tap a song on a table. The tappers thought listeners would guess the song 50% of the time. The real number: 2.5%."

The hook must be SPECIFIC to earn its place. No generic openings.

2. DEFINE — State the concept in one compelling sentence

Define through contrast, not dictionary:

"It's not [what people think]. It's [what it actually is]."

Example:

"It's not that experts are bad teachers. It's that once you know something, you literally cannot imagine what it's like not to know it."

Then expand for 1-2 paragraphs with the research foundation.

3. THE MECHANISM — Why does this happen?

This is where your research pays off:

• Which cognitive bias or psychological mechanism is at work?
• Who discovered/studied it? When? What did they find?
• What evolutionary or structural reason explains it?

If you don't have a named study or researcher here, stop and search. This section is the backbone of the article's authority.

4. EXAMPLES — 2-3 concrete scenarios

Each example must be a MINI-STORY:

• Example 1: Everyday life (reader thinks "that's me!")
• Example 2: Professional/work context (reader thinks "that's my coworker!")
• Counter-example: What happens when someone does it RIGHT

Each example: 1-2 paragraphs, with specific details (names, quotes, dialogue, situations).

5. TAKEAWAY — What the reader can DO

3-5 actionable, specific pieces of advice.

Each takeaway must pass the "So what?" test:

• ❌ "Communicate better."
• ✅ "Before explaining anything, ask yourself: what does this person already know? Start there, not at the beginning."

6. CLOSE — Circle back, provoke

• Reference the hook
• Leave the reader with a question or challenge
• Invite discussion with a specific question

Phase 2: Depth Techniques (The real skill)

These techniques separate good AI writing from great writing. They MUST be applied during and after drafting.

Technique 1: The Specificity Pass

After drafting the article, scan every paragraph. If any paragraph lacks a proper noun (name), a number (date/percentage/amount), or a direct quote, tag it as WEAK. Then either:

• Research and add a specific reference
• Or remove the paragraph entirely

Technique 2: Cross-Domain Connection

Find ONE unexpected connection to another domain:

• If writing about psychology, connect it to programming (e.g., "This is like off-by-one errors in code")
• If writing about business, connect it to sports or nature
• If writing about technology, connect it to ancient history

The cross-domain connection is often what makes an article memorable and shareable.

Technique 3: The Opposite Angle

For each section, ask: "What would someone argue against this?" Then address that counter-argument. This signals depth because it shows you've considered the full picture, not just your own view.

Place the counter-argument either:

• Within the relevant section ("You might think X, but that misses Y.")
• Or as a dedicated section before the close.

Technique 4: Multi-Level Language

Mix three levels of language within the article:

Variety in register signals author sophistication.

Technique 5: The "So What?" Audit

After each section, literally ask: "So what?" If the answer is not obvious from the text itself, rewrite or remove that section.

Platform-Specific Adaptations

知乎

• First-person stories welcome
• 成语/典故 add credibility for Chinese audiences
• Reference Chinese internet culture
• Close: "关注我，了解更多..." + discussion question
• Length: 3000-8000 characters

头条/百家号

• Paragraphs: 1-3 sentences max
• Emotional hooks front-loaded
• Numbers in titles: "3个..." "5种方法..."
• Image suggestions embedded
• Close: Strong CTA + follow reminder
• Length: 1500-4000 characters

Blog/Newsletter

• Footnotes and references welcome
• Subheadings for scannability
• Personal voice
• Length: 1500-4000 words

Twitter/X Thread

• Each "paragraph" = 1 tweet (≤280 chars)
• Numbered: 1/10, 2/10...
• First tweet = self-contained hook
• Last tweet = summar + share prompt
• 1-2 relevant hashtags max

Facebook

• Conversational, starts with personal experience
• Emoji for emotional tone (not decoration)
• Question at end to spark comments
• Reaction prompts: 👍 / 💬 / 🔔
• Length: 500-1500 words

Title Crafting

Generate 3-5 title options. For each, explain WHY it works:

Effective patterns:

• Curiosity gap: "Why [common thing] is actually [counterintuitive truth]"
• Direct address: "If you're a [role], stop doing [thing]"
• Number + benefit: "5 ways to [achieve goal] without [pain point]"
• Challenge: "Everything you know about [topic] is wrong"
• Question: "Why does [problem] keep happening to you?"

Criteria: Click-worthy + Accurate + Platform-appropriate

Quality Checklist

Before outputting the article, verify:

• Phase 0 completed: at least 2 specific studies/experiments cited
• Every paragraph has a specific (name, number, date, or quote)
• At least one cross-domain connection found
• Counter-argument addressed somewhere
• Language varies (academic ↔ conversational ↔ provocative)
• First paragraph is a concrete scene or specific stat, NOT "In this article"
• Last paragraph circles back to the hook
• Platform-specific elements added

If any box is unchecked, fix it before delivering the article.

When NOT to use this skill

• User only wants a summary or outline
• Technical documentation (API docs, READMEs)
• User says "keep it short" or "just the facts"
• Formal academic papers or legal documents
• User has supplied no topic and no direction