MCPInstall

cw-dev-edit

Review a draft for big-picture issues in argument, structure, stakes, evidence, and payoff. Use when a piece needs developmental editing, a top-level diagnosis, or substantial restructuring before sentence polish.

Installs
214
Last 24h
+9
Trending rank
#9188
Security
Not audited

Install

Works with every agent the skills CLI supports.

npx skills add https://github.com/everyinc/compound-writing --skill cw-dev-edit
  1. 01

    Install

    Run the command in your project. The CLI asks which agents to install for.

  2. 02

    Describe the task

    Ask your agent for something this skill covers. It loads cw-dev-edit automatically when relevant.

  3. 03

    Review the result

    The agent follows the SKILL.md steps, scripts and references bundled with the skill.

SKILL.md

The instructions your agent reads when the skill is triggered.

Developmental Edit

Purpose

Review a draft for big-picture issues: argument, structure, stakes, and payoff. Focus on whether the piece works, not whether the sentences are polished.

Read ../../references/context-contract.md and load the relevant assignment, project, publication, source, and voice context before judging the draft.

Keep the writer in the loop on thesis development. Surface evidence and counterarguments that pressure the thesis, present possible moves, and do not quietly replace the core argument.

Entry Points

  • After completing a draft through the workflow
  • Directly with any draft from anywhere
  • As part of a composed "make this better" request

What to Look For

Questions to consider (not all apply to every piece):

AreaQuestions
StructureDoes each section earn its place? Does the order make sense?
ArgumentIs it logically clear and supported? Any holes?
EvidenceWhat backs each major claim? Personal experience? A linked study? A specific example? Where is the support thin or missing?
Outsider readIf a reader who doesn't know the writer or publication picked this up cold, what would they push back on? What would feel like in-group shorthand?
OpeningDoes the hook work? Is the thesis clear? Is there a promise?
StakesWhy should the reader care? Why does the writer care?
PayoffDoes the piece deliver on what it promises?

Use judgment. A personal essay doesn't need argument scrutiny. A how-to doesn't need stakes analysis. Focus on what matters for this piece.

The Structural Tests

Two diagnostic tests for whether the piece holds together. Run both when the structure feels off — or proactively for any piece with subheads.

The Subsection Summary Test

For each subsection: write a one-sentence summary of what it argues. Then re-read the subsection. Anything not in service of that one sentence — cut it.

When invoked by the agent:

  1. Identify each subsection (subhead-defined or paragraph-cluster).
  2. Generate a one-sentence argument summary per subsection.
  3. Flag paragraphs, examples, or asides that don't serve their subsection's summary.
  4. Report the summaries alongside the flagged content so the writer can decide what stays.

This test catches: orphaned good lines that belong elsewhere, padding from earlier drafts, two arguments tangled inside one subsection.

The 20-Second Pitch Test

If someone stopped the writer in a hallway, could they explain the piece in 20 seconds? Now compare that pitch to the thesis/promise as stated in the intro.

When invoked by the agent:

  1. Generate a 20-second pitch from the piece as written (what it's actually about, end to end).
  2. Pull the thesis/promise from the intro as stated.
  3. Show both side by side. Flag the gap.

If the pitch and the intro don't match, one of them is wrong. Usually the intro drifted during revision and needs to catch up to what the piece became.

Evidence Check

For each major claim, ask: what is this backed by?

Support typeVerdict
Personal experience the writer lived throughStrong — let it stand
A linked study, dataset, or named sourceStrong — let it stand
An expert quote or named practitionerStrong — let it stand
A specific named example (company, person, moment)Strong — let it stand
"Studies show…" / "experts agree…" / "many people say…" without specificsWeak — flag
Only the writer's authority, when the writer isn't established on this specific thingWeak — flag
Nothing — assertion floats freeWeak — flag

It's fine to write about something the writer isn't an expert in. It's not fine to make claims without support and rely on confident tone to carry them. Flag floating claims explicitly — the writer can add evidence, soften the claim, or remove it.

Output Options

Full Report (default for comprehensive review)

## Developmental Edit Report

### Opening
🔴 **Critical:** [Issue]
[Why it matters]

🟡 **Consider:** [Issue]
[Explanation]

### [Section Name]
🟢 **Minor:** [Issue]
[Explanation]

---

Where would you like to start?

Severity:

  • 🔴 Critical — Piece doesn't work without fixing
  • 🟡 Consider — Would strengthen significantly
  • 🟢 Minor — Nice to have

Quick Assessment (for faster feedback)

## Quick Dev Edit

**Working well:** [2-3 things]

**Needs attention:**
1. [Main issue + why]
2. [Second issue + why]

**Overall:** [Ready for line edit / Needs another pass / Major restructure needed]

Use quick assessment for shorter pieces, time pressure, or when invoked as part of a composition.

Collaborative Fixing

After the report:

  1. Writer picks where to start (or skip straight to line edit)
  2. Offer fixes: "Here's how I'd address this—[fix]. Want me to make this change?"
  3. Writer accepts, revises themselves, or skips
  4. Repeat as needed

Don't force resolution of every issue. The writer decides what matters.

Flexibility

  • Writer can ask for specific focus ("Just look at the structure")
  • Writer can skip dev-edit entirely
  • Writer can run multiple passes
  • Can be combined with other feedback (nemesis read, objections) for stress testing

For Agents

When invoked programmatically:

  • Accept draft as input
  • Return structured assessment (issues + severity)
  • Include "overall readiness" indicator
  • Can be composed with other review skills

Lessons

[Skill-specific lessons will be added here as they're captured]

FAQ

What does the cw-dev-edit skill do?

Review a draft for big-picture issues in argument, structure, stakes, evidence, and payoff. Use when a piece needs developmental editing, a top-level diagnosis, or substantial restructuring before sentence polish.

How do I install cw-dev-edit?

Run npx skills add https://github.com/everyinc/compound-writing --skill cw-dev-edit in your project. The skills CLI detects the agents you use and copies the skill into the right folder. For Claude Code you can also place the skill folder at ~/.claude/skills/cw-dev-edit/ (personal) or .claude/skills/cw-dev-edit/ (project).

Which AI agents can use cw-dev-edit?

Any agent that supports the open Agent Skills format (a folder with a SKILL.md file), including Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, GitHub Copilot, Gemini CLI, Windsurf, Cline, OpenCode and more.

Is cw-dev-edit safe to install?

No partner security audit is available yet. Skills can run commands and scripts, so read the SKILL.md and any bundled files before installing.

Who maintains cw-dev-edit?

It is published by everyinc in everyinc/compound-writing. It has 214 recorded installs.

More from everyinc/compound-writing

View all →

cw-sedaris

everyinc/compound-writing

Open the skill to read its SKILL.md instructions.

Docs & Writing216 installs

cw-hitchcock

everyinc/compound-writing

Open the skill to read its SKILL.md instructions.

Docs & Writing212 installs

cw-onboarding

everyinc/compound-writing

Open the skill to read its SKILL.md instructions.

Docs & Writing210 installs

cw-simplify

everyinc/compound-writing

Open the skill to read its SKILL.md instructions.

Docs & Writing210 installs

cw-final-pass

everyinc/compound-writing

Open the skill to read its SKILL.md instructions.

Docs & Writing210 installs

cw-interview

everyinc/compound-writing

Open the skill to read its SKILL.md instructions.

Docs & Writing210 installs

Popular code quality & workflow skills

View category →

grill-me

mattpocock/skills

A relentless interview to sharpen a plan or design.

Scan a codebase for deepening opportunities, present them as a visual HTML report, then grill through whichever one you pick.

handoff

mattpocock/skills

Compact the current conversation into a handoff document for another agent to pick up.

domain-modeling

mattpocock/skills

Build and sharpen a project's domain model. Use when discussing codebase terminology, writing or editing a GLOSSARY.md, or recording or editing an ADR.

codebase-design

mattpocock/skills

Shared vocabulary for designing deep modules. Use when the user wants to design or improve a module's interface, find deepening opportunities, decide where a seam goes, make code more testable or AI-navigable, or when another skill needs the deep-module vocabulary.

diagnosing-bugs

mattpocock/skills

Diagnosis loop for hard bugs and performance regressions. Use when the user says "diagnose"/"debug this", or reports something broken/throwing/failing/slow.