Communicating In Writing

---
name: communicating-in-writing
description: Guides written communication — emails, reports, presentations, documents, website copy, newsletters, books. Use when writing or improving writing, adapting to an audience, or shaping document structure. Not for oral delivery or tool-specific formatting (slides, PDFs).
---

# Communicating in Writing

## Purpose

Apply the principles that determine whether written communication achieves its intent — not aesthetics, not style preference, but the fundamentals that govern comprehension, persuasion, and reader action across any document type.

This skill is advisory and high-freedom. The principles below are not a rigid sequence. Apply them as thinking tools. Communication is contextual; the skill provides the framework, you make the judgement calls.

## Scope

Covers four layers of the communication stack:

1. **Intent** — why the document exists and what change it should create
2. **Audience** — who will read it, what they know, and how their minds work
3. **Structure** — how content is ordered and organised
4. **Elements and Craft** — verbal and visual elements; sentence-level clarity

Out of scope: format-specific execution (how to render slides, generate PDFs, build dashboards), tool guidance, workflow orchestration.

## Inputs

Before applying this skill, establish:

- **Purpose statement** — what the document must achieve in one sentence
- **Audience definition** — who the primary reader is, their knowledge level, and what they care about
- **Document type** — email, report, proposal, guide, or other (shapes structural defaults)
- **Constraints** — length limits, tone requirements, format restrictions, or other non-negotiables

If any of these are unclear, resolve them before writing. A document begun without a clear purpose usually requires complete rewriting once purpose is identified.

Before drafting, work through Layers 1-3 explicitly. Draft only after intent, audience, and structure are decided.

## Outputs

This skill does not produce files. It guides the production of any written artefact. Apply it during drafting, then use the Self-Assessment Checklist as the evaluative pass before finalising.

## Three Meta-Principles

Every principle in this skill flows from three underlying truths the research identifies across all communication disciplines:

1. **Audience determines everything.** Every choice — structure, vocabulary, length, depth — is calibrated against the reader, not the writer.

2. **Clarity is removing friction, not dumbing down.** The goal is appropriate complexity delivered without unnecessary obstacles. Remove what impedes understanding; keep what the content requires.

3. **Structure precedes execution.** The order and grouping of content determines comprehension more than prose quality does. Fix structure before fixing sentences.

## Layer 1 — Intent

Start with purpose before writing a word.

**Establish the purpose:**
- State what the document must achieve in one sentence. ("This proposal must persuade the board to approve the Q3 budget increase.")
- Identify the single most important outcome. If there are multiple, rank them. A document with two equal purposes usually fails both.

**Define what changes:**
- Specify what the reader should know, believe, feel, or do after reading that they did not before.
- If you cannot state this clearly, the writing is not ready to begin.

**Determine the call to action:**
- Make explicit what you are asking the reader to do. Even a purely informational document usually has an implicit next step — surface it.

## Layer 2 — Audience

Calibrate everything to the reader before choosing structure or words.

**Map who reads this:**
- Identify the primary reader (the decision-maker or main recipient) and any secondary readers.
- For each: what do they already know about this topic? What do they care about? What are they likely to resist?

**Account for cognitive constraints:**
- Working memory is limited — approximately four new chunks of information at once. When you exceed this, comprehension degrades regardless of how well-written the prose is.
- Apply this practically: use one idea per paragraph, limit list items to seven or fewer, break complex arguments into discrete steps.
- Prior knowledge determines not just vocabulary but structure. Expert readers tolerate dense sections with multiple concepts and domain-specific compression. Non-expert readers need the same content broken into more sections, with more scaffolding, analogy, and explicit transitions between ideas. Match both vocabulary and information density to the reader's knowledge level, not to what feels natural to you as the expert.

**Check for audience mismatch signals:**
- Jargon the reader does not know
- Assumed context the reader does not have
- Level of detail misaligned with the reader's needs (too granular for an executive; too high-level for a technical implementer)

## Layer 3 — Structure

Determine the order and organisation of content before writing prose.

**Lead with the answer:**
- State the conclusion, recommendation, or main point first. Then provide the reasoning and evidence.
- This applies to most professional writing — emails, reports, proposals, memos. Readers need the answer before the reasoning.
- Exception: when the reader needs to be prepared emotionally or contextually before they can accept the conclusion (bad news, controversial recommendations), build the case first. This exception is deliberate, not a default.

**Build the document hierarchy:**
- Organise the body using a clear hierarchy: main sections, sub-sections, supporting detail.
- Each section should address one question. If a section is trying to answer two questions, split it.
- Use headings to signal what each section delivers, not just label its topic. "Next steps" is a topic label. "Three decisions required by Friday" is a signal.

**Apply narrative logic:**
- Strong documents have a through-line — a logical thread the reader can follow from opening to close.
- Test it: can you describe the document's argument in two or three sentences, in order? If not, the structure has a gap.
- For persuasive documents: establish the current situation, surface the complication (why the status quo is insufficient), pose the question this creates, then answer it.

**Make persuasive documents work on three levels:**
- Logical structure (logos) — does the argument hold? Is evidence sound and reasoning coherent?
- Credibility (ethos) — why should the reader trust this source? Establish relevant expertise, track record, or shared values early. Do not assume credibility; build it.
- Relevance to what the reader values (pathos) — why should they care? Connect the recommendation to the reader's actual concerns, not only to the abstract merits. Most writing defaults to logic alone. Check whether credibility and reader values are explicitly addressed.

**Prioritise openings and closings:**
- Readers remember the first and last things they read more than anything in the middle.
- Ensure the opening states the core message. Ensure the closing reinforces it or drives the call to action — not a generic summary.
- A weak closing wastes the primacy advantage of a strong opening.

**Make complex content navigable:**
- For longer documents, provide a summary or overview at the start.
- Use parallel structure in lists and headings so readers can scan.
- Repeat key terms consistently rather than varying vocabulary for style — consistency aids navigation; variation creates confusion.

## Layer 4 — Elements and Craft

Construct sentences and visual elements that deliver the structure cleanly.

**Sentence-level clarity:**
- Use the active voice as the default. Reserve passive voice for when the actor is genuinely unknown or irrelevant.
- Use concrete, specific nouns and verbs. Replace nominalisations (generalisations, implementations, utilisation) with the verb forms (generalise, implement, use).
- Keep sentences short as a default — 15 to 25 words. Break complex sentences into two when the reader would need to re-read.
- Put the most important information at the start of the sentence. Readers remember openings; they lose track of long sentence tails.

**Paragraph discipline:**
- One idea per paragraph. Open with the main point (the topic sentence), then support, qualify, or develop it.
- Paragraphs of more than six lines are usually doing too much. Break them.

**Visual and verbal representation:**
- When content describes relationships, processes, comparisons, or spatial arrangements, represent it visually (table, diagram, flowchart) as well as in prose. Readers who encounter both verbal and visual representations retain more than readers who encounter either alone.
- Ask: does this concept have relational, quantitative, or structural dimensions? If so, a diagram or table alongside the prose is not decoration — it is a second encoding that reinforces the first.
- Use headings, bullet lists, and whitespace to make the document scannable. Readers scan before they read.
- Bullet lists work for discrete, parallel items. Do not use them for content with causal relationships — that needs prose or a numbered sequence.
- Whitespace is not decoration — it separates ideas visually and reduces reading fatigue.

**Line length:**
- When you control the rendering format (designing a layout, producing a PDF), aim for 60 to 80 characters per line in body text. Wider lines cause readers to lose their place; narrow columns fragment thought.
- When outputting text for variable-width containers (email clients, web pages, chat interfaces), trust the container to handle line length. Do not insert hard line breaks.

**Match tone to context:**
- Formal writing is appropriate when the reader expects it (legal, regulatory, academic contexts) and when register signals respect for the occasion.
- Conversational writing is more effective for engagement and retention in most professional contexts — emails, reports, internal documents.
- Avoid hedging language ("it might perhaps be considered") unless hedging is substantively accurate. Unnecessary qualification weakens credibility.

## Self-Assessment Checklist

Use this as an evaluate-fix-re-evaluate loop. Check, fix any issues, then re-check.

**Round 1 — Diagnose against failure modes**

Buried lead:
- [ ] Is the most important point in the first third of the document? If not, move it.
- [ ] Can the reader state the document's main point after reading the first paragraph?

Audience mismatch:
- [ ] Is any vocabulary unfamiliar to the primary reader? Replace or define it.
- [ ] Does the document assume context the reader does not have? Add it or cut the dependency.
- [ ] Is the level of detail appropriate — not too granular, not too high-level?

Cognitive overload:
- [ ] Does any section introduce more than four new concepts without a summary or break?
- [ ] Are any paragraphs over six lines? Break them.
- [ ] Are any lists more than seven items? Split or group them.

Poor structure:
- [ ] Can you trace a single logical thread from the opening to the close? If not, there is a structural gap.
- [ ] Does each section address exactly one question? If not, split it.
- [ ] Do headings signal what the reader will learn, or just label topics?

Unclear purpose:
- [ ] Is the document's purpose stated or implied within the first paragraph?
- [ ] Does the document end with a clear next step or call to action?
- [ ] If a reader asks "what do you want me to do?" can the document answer immediately?

**Round 2 — Sentence and craft pass**

- [ ] Are there nominalisations or passive constructions that obscure the actor or action? Rewrite them.
- [ ] Are there hedging phrases ("it might be argued that", "it is perhaps worth noting") that are not substantively warranted? Remove them.
- [ ] Is vocabulary consistent — same term for the same concept throughout?
- [ ] Do bullet lists contain parallel items? If not, rewrite for parallelism or convert to prose.
- [ ] Are line lengths and whitespace appropriate for the medium?

**Round 3 — Final coherence check**

- [ ] Read the opening paragraph and the closing paragraph. Do they frame the same document?
- [ ] Can a time-pressed reader get the essential meaning from headings and topic sentences alone?
- [ ] Does the document achieve the intent stated in Layer 1?

If any check fails, fix it and re-run that round before moving to the next.

## Edge Cases

**When conclusions-first conflicts with the reader's emotional state:**
Bad news, controversial recommendations, and culturally sensitive messages sometimes require building the case before stating the conclusion. The reader needs to be prepared to receive the conclusion before it lands. Use this deliberately — build a brief but clear context, then deliver. Do not use it as a general escape from conclusions-first structure.

**When the audience is mixed (experts and non-experts in the same document):**
Layer the document. Put the executive summary at the front for non-experts and decision-makers. Put technical detail in appendices or clearly labelled sub-sections that expert readers know to seek out. Do not write one body that tries to serve both audiences equally — it will serve neither well.

**When brevity conflicts with completeness:**
Ask which failure mode is more costly in this context — leaving out something the reader needs, or burdening the reader with content they do not need. For most professional communication, the second failure is more common and more damaging. Cut to the reader's need, not to your thoroughness.

**When the purpose is genuinely unclear:**
Do not write the document until the purpose is clear. Go back to Layer 1. Writing to discover the purpose produces documents that cannot be edited into shape — they need to be rewritten from scratch once purpose is identified. Clarity of intent is not a luxury; it is a prerequisite.

**When structure principles conflict:**
If conclusions-first and narrative logic are in tension (the conclusion requires context to be understood), lead with a one-sentence orientation ("This is a recommendation to change our pricing model") then provide the context, then restate and develop the conclusion. The reader is never disoriented, and the conclusion is still foregrounded.

## Evaluation Scenarios

### Scenario 1 — Burying the lead in a status report

**Without this skill:** An agent produces a project status report structured as: background context (3 paragraphs) → work completed this week (2 paragraphs) → risks and issues (1 paragraph) → recommendation to pause the project (final sentence). The critical information — the recommendation to pause — appears last.

**With this skill:** The agent applies Layer 3 (lead with the answer). The report opens with: "Recommendation: pause the project until X is resolved." It then provides context, work completed, and the risks that led to the recommendation. The reader can act on the key finding immediately.

**What changed:** Structure. The content is identical; the order is not.

---

### Scenario 2 — Audience mismatch in a technical summary

**Without this skill:** An agent drafts a summary of a security audit for a board of directors using technical terminology (CVEs, CVSS scores, attack vectors, lateral movement). The board reads "17 critical CVEs with CVSS scores above 9.0 indicating potential for lateral movement" and cannot assess whether this is an emergency or routine.

**With this skill:** The agent applies Layer 2 (audience analysis). The board summary reads: "The audit found 17 severe vulnerabilities. If exploited, an attacker could move from one compromised system to others — potentially accessing financial and customer data. Three require immediate remediation." Technical detail is preserved in a separate appendix for the security team.

**What changed:** Vocabulary and detail level calibrated to the primary audience. The technical content exists; it is routed to the right reader.

---

### Scenario 3 — Cognitive overload in an onboarding document

**Without this skill:** An agent produces an employee onboarding guide as 12 paragraphs of continuous prose, each introducing two or three new concepts, with no headings, no lists, and no summaries. New employees report feeling overwhelmed and unsure where to start.

**With this skill:** The agent applies Layers 3 and 4 together. The document is restructured with clear section headings (each answering one question: "How do I get access to systems?", "What do I do on Day 1?"). Long paragraphs are broken into short ones or bullet lists of discrete steps. A summary table at the front maps the first week. Each section is scannable before it is readable.

**What changed:** Structure and visual organisation reduced cognitive load. The reader can navigate to what they need rather than processing everything sequentially.