Wes Kao Spiky Pov

---
name: wes-kao-spiky-pov
description: "Develop defensible, debatable points of view using Wes Kao's public method. Use when drafting or sharpening posts, essays, talk theses, founder takes, or positioning that feels obvious, hedged, or provocative without substance."
---

# Spiky Point of View

Based on Wes Kao's public method. Not affiliated with or endorsed by Wes Kao.

Turn an observation into a claim the author can defend, a credible peer can dispute, and the intended audience can use. Deliver a finished piece in the requested format, supported by reasoning and a clear consequence for the reader. The objective is a useful conversation and changed thinking, rather than unanimous approval. [S1]

## When to use

Use for LinkedIn or X posts, opinion essays, thought leadership, founder perspectives, talk theses, and positioning lines. Apply it when a draft summarizes familiar advice, substitutes questions for a position, buries its recommendation under qualifiers, or seeks attention through unsupported provocation.

Work within the author's actual domain and experience. Preserve their intended audience, purpose, format, and voice. A factual update or neutral research summary does not automatically need a debatable claim. If the author has no defensible position yet, develop a scoped hypothesis and identify the evidence needed before publication. Never manufacture personal conviction, customer stories, or results. [S1][S5]

## Procedure

Use the following loop. Read [references/method.md](references/method.md) for the underlying decisions, then open the template, examples, or checklist when that step requires them. Source citations document the method; they do not substantiate the author's industry claims.

1. **Define the brief.** Identify the author, credible domain, audience, desired change in belief or behavior, and channel constraints. Inventory supplied evidence and missing information using the brief fields in [templates/output-template.md](templates/output-template.md). Ask only for gaps that materially affect the claim.

2. **Mine candidate positions.** Use the prompts in [references/method.md](references/method.md#candidate-discovery). Start with three to five candidates for a single piece; explore ten or more for a broader position inventory. Draw from the author's frustrations, recurring explanations, and experience with accepted practices. [S1][S2]

3. **Separate facts from interpretation.** For each candidate, identify what was observed, what it might mean, and what the author recommends. Follow [references/method.md](references/method.md#observation-to-assertion) to move beyond an interesting fact toward an owned conclusion. [S3][S6]

4. **Apply the five traits.** Check debatability, useful purpose, audience learning, defensibility, and conviction against [references/method.md](references/method.md#the-five-traits). Reject a candidate that merely attracts attention or repeats consensus. Repair a promising candidate before discarding it. [S1]

5. **Write a credible opposing view.** Use the disagreement test in [references/method.md](references/method.md#disagreement-and-selection). Explain why a knowledgeable peer would choose differently. Select the candidate with the strongest combination of author credibility, evidence, and reader relevance; briefly explain the choice when comparing supplied drafts.

6. **Sharpen the claim.** Name the situation, disputed practice or frame, and recommended alternative. Use [references/method.md](references/method.md#specificity-and-mechanism) and [examples/worked-examples.md](examples/worked-examples.md) to replace broad slogans with bounded, meaningful assertions. Add numbers only when supported.

7. **Build the reasoning.** Connect evidence to interpretation and action. Show a concrete example, script, or decision rule, following [references/method.md](references/method.md#specificity-and-mechanism). Distinguish firsthand evidence from assumptions and proposed tests. Never treat an invented illustration as the author's history. [S9][S13]

8. **Calibrate certainty.** Match wording to evidence, stakes, and the author's authority. Use [references/method.md](references/method.md#confidence-and-language) to preserve necessary uncertainty while removing defensive filler. A confident style does not convert a hypothesis into a fact. [S5][S8]

9. **Handle the obvious objection.** Anticipate the most likely substantive challenge and answer it in a proportionate passage. Follow [references/method.md](references/method.md#objections-and-reader-motivation). Keep a material exception even when it requires more explanation than a short post allows. [S8]

10. **Assemble the deliverable.** Fill the publishable section of [templates/output-template.md](templates/output-template.md): claim, evidence or mechanism, objection, and reader consequence. Lead with reader value before detailed instructions when buy-in is missing. Answer substantive questions before inviting discussion. [S3][S4][S14]

11. **Review and revise.** Run [checklists/review-checklist.md](checklists/review-checklist.md). Resolve failures by changing the claim, evidence, scope, or wording. Keep necessary reasoning; cut material that serves venting or distracts from the reader's next decision. [S7][S15]

12. **Return and test.** Return the requested piece, with a short rationale or evidence gaps only when useful. Use [references/method.md](references/method.md#feedback-and-iteration) to propose audience testing when appropriate. Report resonance as untested until real feedback exists, then revise the exact passages that create interest, confusion, or disagreement. [S12]

## Files in this skill

- [SKILL.md](SKILL.md): Entry point, usage boundaries, and the agent's working loop.
- [references/method.md](references/method.md): Detailed principles, decision rules, warnings, and edge cases.
- [references/sources.md](references/sources.md): Numbered register of fetched public sources and their contributions.
- [examples/worked-examples.md](examples/worked-examples.md): Invented illustrations with weak drafts, revisions, and rule notes.
- [templates/output-template.md](templates/output-template.md): Fill-in brief, reasoning record, and finished-piece template.
- [checklists/review-checklist.md](checklists/review-checklist.md): Pass/fail review, recurring failures, and practical fixes.