lyndonkl/writing-stickiness

Writing Stickiness Enhancement

Table of Contents

• Core Principles
• Workflow
• SUCCESs Framework Overview
• Guardrails
• Quick Reference

Related skills: Use writing-structure-planner for planning structure, writing-revision for prose revision, writing-pre-publish-checklist for final quality checks.

Core Principles

1. Six dimensions of stickiness: Simple, Unexpected, Concrete, Credible, Emotional, Stories
2. Diagnose before treating: Score current stickiness first, then improve weakest areas
3. Not all principles are equal: Some matter more for certain contexts - prioritize accordingly
4. Concrete beats abstract: Brains think in images, not abstractions
5. Individuals beat statistics: One person's story moves people more than millions in data

Workflow

Copy this checklist and track your progress:

Stickiness Enhancement:
- [ ] Step 1: Analyze against SUCCESs framework
- [ ] Step 2: Improve weak principles
- [ ] Step 3: Score and refine

Before starting: Review resources/success-model.md for the complete SUCCESs framework with all 6 principles, stickiness scorecard, and before/after examples.

Analyze the entire document first and output findings to an analysis file in the current directory, then read that file to make improvements. This ensures complete coverage.

Step 1: Analyze against SUCCESs framework

Step 1.1: Read entire draft. Create analysis file writer-stickiness-analysis.md assessing the document against all 6 SUCCESs principles:

• Simple (0-3): Identify core message in 12 words or fewer. List competing messages. Rate clarity and focus.
• Unexpected (0-3): Identify surprise elements or curiosity gaps. Note where expectations could be violated. Rate attention-getting power.
• Concrete (0-3): List visualizable details. Identify abstract sections needing examples. Rate sensory specificity.
• Credible (0-3): Identify credibility sources (statistics, testability, authority, vivid details). Note unsupported claims. Rate believability.
• Emotional (0-3): Identify emotional connections and personal benefits. Note where motivation could be strengthened. Rate "care factor."
• Stories (0-3): Identify story or human elements. Note opportunities to add narrative. Rate mental simulation potential.

Step 1.2: Calculate total current stickiness score out of 18. Present findings to user.

See each principle's section in resources/success-model.md for detailed scoring guidance.

Step 2: Improve weak principles

Step 2.1: Read analysis file. Identify the 2-3 weakest principles (scored 0-1).

Step 2.2: Work through entire draft making targeted improvements for each weak principle:

• Simple: Refine core message to 12 words or fewer. Strip competing ideas.
• Unexpected: Add surprise or curiosity gaps. Violate reader expectations.
• Concrete: Add visualizable details and specific examples. Replace abstractions.
• Credible: Add statistics (human-scale), testability ("try it yourself"), authority, or vivid details.
• Emotional: Strengthen personal benefits and emotional connections. Focus on individuals, not masses.
• Stories: Add narrative or human elements. Use challenge, connection, or creativity plots.

Step 2.3: Present improved version to user with changes highlighted.

See resources/success-model.md for specific techniques and examples for each principle.

Step 3: Score and refine

Step 3.1: Score the revised message using the Stickiness Scorecard.

Step 3.2: Aim for 12+/18 for good stickiness, 15+/18 for excellent. If score is below 12, identify the weakest 2 principles and do another improvement pass focusing on those.

Step 3.3: Present final scored version with before/after comparison.

See resources/success-model.md - Complete Example for transformation patterns.

Validate using resources/evaluators/rubric_stickiness.json. Minimum standard: Average score >= 3.5.

SUCCESs Framework Overview

| Principle | Key Question | Technique | |-----------|-------------|-----------| | Simple | What's the ONE core idea? | Commander's intent in 12 words | | Unexpected | What will surprise readers? | Schema violation + curiosity gaps | | Concrete | Can readers visualize it? | Sensory details, specific examples | | Credible | Why should readers believe it? | Human-scale stats, testability | | Emotional | Why should readers care? | Individual focus, identity appeal | | Stories | Can readers simulate the experience? | Challenge/connection/creativity plots |

Scoring: Each principle rated 0-3. Total out of 18. Target 12+ for good, 15+ for excellent.

Guardrails

Requirements:

1. Score before improving: Always analyze and score the current state before making changes
2. Target weakest first: Focus improvements on the lowest-scoring principles
3. Preserve accuracy: Never sacrifice truthfulness for stickiness - credibility matters
4. Context-appropriate: Not every piece needs maximum stickiness - match to purpose
5. Re-score after improving: Always score the revised version to measure improvement

Common pitfalls:

• Improving already-strong principles while ignoring weak ones
• Adding surprise that's random rather than relevant to the core message
• Using statistics that are too large to grasp (billions, trillions)
• Focusing on masses instead of individuals for emotional appeal
• Telling instead of showing when adding stories

Quick Reference

Key resources:

• resources/success-model.md: Complete SUCCESs framework, all 6 principles, scorecard, examples
• resources/evaluators/rubric_stickiness.json: Quality scoring criteria

Inputs required:

• Draft text or message to enhance
• Target audience (if known)
• Context (presentation, article, email, pitch, etc.)

Outputs produced:

• Stickiness analysis with per-principle scores
• Improved version targeting weak principles
• Before/after comparison with score improvement