---
name: Article
slug: article
category: Writing
description: "Article writes publication-ready long-form pieces in a chosen angle: general topic, repo thesis, or lens essay. It can also generate an optional Replicate hero image with --visual."
github: "https://github.com/aeonfun/aeon/tree/main/skills/article"
language: TypeScript
stars: 679
forks: 242
install: "npx degit https://github.com/aeonfun/aeon/tree/main/skills/article ~/.claude/skills/article"
installs_to: ~/.claude/skills/article
source_path: skills/article/SKILL.md
collection_size: 25
category_size: 1012
collection_url: "https://dirskills.com/collections/aeonfun/aeon"
added: 2026-08-24T05:16:27.258Z
last_synced: 2026-08-24T05:16:27.258Z
canonical_url: "https://dirskills.com/skills/article"
---

# Article

Article writes publication-ready long-form pieces in a chosen angle: general topic, repo thesis, or lens essay. It can also generate an optional Replicate hero image with --visual.

**Install:**

```bash
npx degit https://github.com/aeonfun/aeon/tree/main/skills/article ~/.claude/skills/article
```

## README

> **${var}** — Selector: `[angle:arg] [--visual]`. The **angle** prefix picks the article type; append **`--visual`** (or `visual`) anywhere to also generate a Replicate hero image.
>
> - **empty** → `standard` general long-form article on an auto-selected trending topic. If the resolved topic is a single explainable mechanism, it becomes a technical explainer instead.
> - **`<topic>`** (no recognized prefix) → `standard` article on that topic.
> - **`repo:<owner/repo>`** → `repo` thesis-driven article about that repo. `repo:<angle>` (e.g. `repo:architecture`) or bare `repo:` uses the repo from `memory/watched-repos.md` with that angle / an auto-selected angle — this preserves repo-article's original input.
> - **`lens:<topic>`** → `lens` project-through-a-lens essay framed by that lens (e.g. `lens:unix philosophy`). Bare `lens:` auto-selects the lens.
> - **`--visual`** appended to any of the above → after the body is written, generate a Replicate hero image (optional `REPLICATE_API_TOKEN`; ships text-only if absent).
>
> Examples: `""`, `"entropy trajectory reasoning --visual"`, `"repo:aeonfun/aeon"`, `"repo:roadmap"`, `"lens:regulation wave --visual"`.

Today is ${today}. Write a high-quality, publication-ready article. No placeholders.

## Shared preamble (every run)

1. Read `memory/MEMORY.md` for context on what topics/articles have been covered recently.
2. Read the last 3–7 days of `memory/logs/` for recent activity — and **don't re-report** something already covered.
3. **Parse `${var}` into `angle` + `visual`:**
   - Detect a standalone `--visual` or `visual` token anywhere in `${var}`; if present set **`visual = true`** and strip that token. Otherwise `visual = false`.
   - From what remains: if it starts with `repo:` → `angle = repo`, `arg =` the rest. If it starts with `lens:` → `angle = lens`, `arg =` the rest. Otherwise → `angle = standard`, `arg =` the whole remaining string (empty ⇒ auto-select).
4. Dispatch to the matching angle section below. If `visual = true`, run the **Visual add-on** after the article body is written, regardless of angle.

---

## Angle: standard — long-form article / technical explainer

A single long-form article. It takes one of two structures depending on the topic:

- **General article** — a broad trend, development, or event. 600–800 words.
- **Technical explainer** — a single explainable mechanism, technique, algorithm, or system. 600–1000 words, using the explainer structure below.

### Topic selection (standard)

- If `arg` (the topic) is set, use it verbatim. If it clearly names a single mechanism/technique/system → **technical explainer** structure; otherwise → **general article** structure.
- If `arg` is empty, pick deterministically — first hit wins:
  1. **Explainer candidate:** a single most non-obvious mechanism inside the newest file in `output/articles/` from the last 3 days; else the newest "Paper Pick" in `memory/logs/` from the last 7 days (its headline mechanism); else a specific technique/algorithm/system surfaced in the last 7 days of logs. If a strong single-mechanism candidate exists → **technical explainer** on it. Reject any candidate broader than a single mechanism (e.g. "AI agents" — too vague; "MCP tool-routing via vector search" — usable).
  2. **General candidate:** otherwise search the web for the most interesting recent development in AI, crypto/DeFi, or consciousness research — pick whichever has the most compelling story today (WebSearch) → **general article**.

### Voice (technical explainer)

If a `soul/` directory exists, read the soul files for voice calibration: `soul/SOUL.md` (identity, worldview, opinions), then `soul/STYLE.md` (writing style, sentence structure, anti-patterns). This is *you explaining a mechanism to a smart friend* — more precision than a general article, same voice. No textbook tone, no "let's explore." If `soul/` is empty, default to clear, direct, neutral.

### Research

**General article:** read 2–3 source articles with WebFetch to gather facts and quotes.

**Technical explainer:** run **three distinct WebSearch queries** so you triangulate rather than echo one source:
1. `"<topic>" how it works` — mechanism explanations
2. `"<topic>" benchmark OR results OR latency OR cost` — concrete numbers
3. `"<topic>" limits OR criticism OR fails OR doesn't work` — failure modes and pushback

If the topic is from a paper, also fetch the paper metadata and abstract:
```bash
curl -s "https://api.semanticscholar.org/graph/v1/paper/search?query=TOPIC&limit=5&fields=title,authors,abstract,url,publicationDate,openAccessPdf" \
  || echo "curl failed — use WebFetch on https://www.semanticscholar.org/search?q=TOPIC instead"
```
Use **WebFetch** to read the 2–3 best sources in depth. **At least one source must be primary**: a paper (arXiv / OpenReview / Semantic Scholar), official documentation, the project's own README, or a code repo. Blog summaries alone are not enough — they often mangle the mechanism.

Extract:
- The **single core mechanism** — the one move that, once you grok it, makes the rest fall into place.
- A **vivid analogy** for the mechanism, and the precise place where the analogy breaks down (the breakage is the interesting part).
- **3–5 specific numbers** — benchmarks, latencies, costs, error rates, training compute, parameter counts. Each number gets a source URL.
- **What would falsify this** — what result, if observed, would mean the mechanism doesn't work as claimed. If you can't name one, the explanation isn't sharp enough — keep digging.

### Write

**General article** — 600–800 words in Markdown. Include:
- A compelling title
- A short intro hook
- 3–4 substantive sections
- Cited sources (with URLs) at the bottom

**Technical explainer** — 600–1000 words. Structure (every section required):
```
# <Title>

**Key idea in one sentence:** <one-sentence claim about the mechanism>

## The Setup
2-3 sentences. What problem does this solve? Why now?

## The Intuition Pump
A vivid analogy that builds the reader's mental model in 3-4 sentences. Then one sentence on **where the analogy breaks down** — that's where the real mechanism lives.

## How It Actually Works
A numbered walkthrough of the mechanism in **3-7 steps**. Each step is one or two sentences. Use concrete examples — name the specific function, layer, message, opcode, contract. No "the system processes the input" — say what the system actually does.

## Numbers That Anchor It
3-5 bullet points. Each bullet is a specific number with a source link, e.g.:
- 8.4× faster end-to-end than baseline at 4K context ([source](url))

## What Would Break This
1-2 sentences naming a result that, if observed, would falsify the claim. This forces honesty.

## Why It Matters
2-3 sentences. What does this unlock? Who should care?

## Sources
- [Title 1](url) — primary
- [Title 2](url)
- [Title 3](url)
```

**Voice rules (technical explainer):** First person where it fits. Explanatory > opinionated, but not bloodless. Technical precision > hedging — if you don't know, say so, don't fudge. Short paragraphs. Em dashes. Concrete > abstract. Reference specific systems, papers, people — no "researchers have shown," name them. Cite inline: every number, every claim that could be wrong, gets a link.

### Save & notify (standard)

- **General article:** save to `output/articles/${today}.md`.
- **Technical explainer:** save to `output/articles/explainer-${today}.md`. If a hero image was generated (see Visual add-on), put it at the very top: `![hero](../images/explainer-${today}.<ext>)` — relative path, skip the line if no image — and add an HTML comment with the image prompt used (for future audits).

Update `memory/MEMORY.md` to record the article and its topic (add to the `Recent Articles` list/table). Append the consolidated log entry (see **Log**), then notify via `./notify`:

- **General article:**
  ```
  New article written: [title]

  https://github.com/${GITHUB_REPOSITORY}/blob/main/output/articles/${today}.md
  ```
  Use the `$GITHUB_REPOSITORY` env var (GitHub Actions sets it to `owner/repo` of the running instance).

- **Technical explainer:**
  ```
  technical explainer: [title]

  [the one-sentence "key idea" line, verbatim]

  [hero image URL if generated — original Replicate URL still works for ~24h]

  read it: output/articles/explainer-${today}.md
  ```

---

## Angle: repo — thesis-driven article about a watched repo

<!-- autoresearch: variation B — editorial discipline: research → thesis → draft → self-edit, with a falsifiable claim and a quality gate -->

### Config

Reads repos from `memory/watched-repos.md`. Resolve the target repo:
- If `arg` looks like `owner/repo` (contains a `/`) → that's the repo to cover; the angle is auto-selected in Phase 2.
- Else if `arg` is a non-empty keyword (e.g. `architecture`, `recent progress`, `roadmap`) → it's the **angle**; pick the repo from `memory/watched-repos.md` (if multiple are listed, the one with the most activity in the last 7 days).
- Else (`arg` empty) → repo from `memory/watched-repos.md` (most active of the last 7 days), angle auto-selected.

An article without a thesis is filler. This angle runs five phases and only advances when the current phase's gate passes.

### Phase 1 — Research (gather, don't write yet)

Run these in parallel where possible (substitute the resolved `owner/repo`):
```bash
# Repo metadata
gh api repos/owner/repo --jq '{name, description, language, stargazers_count, forks_count, open_issues_count, topics, created_at, updated_at, pushed_at, default_branch}'

# Commits in last 7 days (paginated)
gh api repos/owner/repo/commits -X GET \
  -f since="$(date -u -d '7 days ago' +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ 2>/dev/null || date -u -v-7d +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" \
  --jq '.[] | {sha: .sha[0:7], msg: .commit.message | split("\n")[0], author: .commit.author.name, date: .commit.author.date, url: .html_url}' --paginate

# Merged PRs in last 7 days
gh api 'repos/owner/repo/pulls?state=closed&sort=updated&direction=desc&per_page=50' \
  --jq '[.[] | select(.merged_at and (.merged_at > (now - 86400*7 | todate))) | {number, title, user: .user.login, merged_at, additions, deletions, url: .html_url}]'

# Open PRs
gh api repos/owner/repo/pulls --jq '[.[] | {number, title, user: .user.login, created_at, draft, labels: [.labels[].name], url: .html_url}]'

# Issues opened/closed in last 7 days (exclude PRs)
gh api 'repos/owner/repo/issues?state=all&since='$(date -u -d '7 days ago' +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)'&per_page=100' --paginate \
  --jq '[.[] | select(.pull_request | not) | {number, title, state, created_at, closed_at, labels: [.labels[].name]}]'

# Last 3 releases
gh api repos/owner/repo/releases --jq '.[0:3] | .[] | {tag_name, name, published_at, body}'

# README (fallback: WebFetch raw URL if base64 decode fails)
gh api repos/owner/repo/readme --jq '.content' | base64 -d
```

From the commit list, find the most-frequently-touched files. Read the top 2–3 of those with `gh api repos/owner/repo/contents/<path>` plus any `CHANGELOG.md`, `ROADMAP.md`, or architecture docs.

**External context** — three distinct WebSearch queries:
1. `"owner/repo" site:news.ycombinator.com OR site:lobste.rs OR site:reddit.com`
2. `"owner/repo" twitter OR x.com` (or the project name if distinctive)
3. One query to anchor positioning against a comparable/competing project.

**Gate 1 — enough story?** If **all** of the following hold, abort and notify `REPO_ARTICLE_SKIPPED: insufficient activity` (log reason, write no article):
- <3 commits in the last 7 days, AND
- 0 merged PRs in the last 7 days, AND
- no release in the last 30 days, AND
- no external mentions surfaced in step 3.

**Quiet-repo exception**: if the repo has historical importance but is currently slow (e.g. only 1–2 commits this week, no release), do **not** skip — instead narrow the article's focus to the single most substantive recent change (a specific commit, a contested issue thread, a roadmap update) and write a shorter piece around *that*. Prefer publishing a tight 600-word piece on one real change over skipping.

### Phase 2 — Thesis

Write one **falsifiable claim** in ≤25 words. The claim must be disprovable by specific evidence — not a vibe.
- Good: "aeonfun/aeon is pivoting from scheduled digests to reactive skill chains — 4 of 7 merged PRs this week added or consumed `output/.chains/*.md` contracts."
- Bad: "Aeon is an interesting agent framework." (not falsifiable)

If an angle is forced (from `arg`), the thesis must relate to it (e.g. angle `architecture` → an architectural claim). If no angle is forced, pick the one with the strongest evidence from: shipping velocity shift, architectural pivot, community growth inflection, roadmap commitment, deprecation/scope cut, performance or scale milestone.

**Gate 2 — falsifiability.** Finish the sentence: "This claim would be wrong if ____." If you can't complete it with something concrete and checkable, rewrite the thesis.

### Phase 3 — Draft (600–900 words, Markdown)

```markdown
# [Title that asserts the thesis or a consequence of it — not "A look at X"]

[1-paragraph hook, ≤80 words: lead with the thesis or a surprising number that sets it up.]

## The claim
> [The falsifiable thesis, verbatim, as a blockquote.]

## Evidence
[Two to four sub-paragraphs. Each MUST cite at least one specific commit SHA, PR#, file path, release tag, or external mention. Link the source inline.]

## Counter-evidence / what would change my mind
[One paragraph. What recent signals argue against the thesis? Be honest. If genuinely nothing does, say so — but only after looking.]

## Why it matters
[One paragraph. Who benefits or loses if the thesis is true? Connect to an ecosystem trend, user need, or competing project.]

---
*Sources*
- [Label](url)
- [Label](url)
[≥4 total, ≥1 in-repo (commit/PR link) and ≥1 external (news/social/doc).]
```

### Phase 4 — Self-edit (required)

Run this checklist. Rewrite any line that fails. Target: 8/8 passing.
1. **Thesis visible in first 100 words?** If not, rewrite the hook.
2. **Every section has ≥1 specific number, SHA, PR#, filename, or date?** (generic adjectives don't count)
3. **Zero banned phrases** (see *Banned phrase lexicon* section below — check against that explicit list).
4. **Counter-evidence is real** — not a strawman like "some might say it's complex".
5. **Sources ≥4 links, ≥1 in-repo, ≥1 external.**
6. **Title asserts something** (not "A look at X" / "Exploring Y").
7. **Word count in 600–900** (hard bounds — trim or expand).
8. **No placeholder phrases** like "[TBD]", "[link]", "[title]".

If any item still fails after one rewrite pass, publish with status `REPO_ARTICLE_DEGRADED` and note which items failed in the log — don't hide it.

### Phase 5 — Save, log, notify (repo)

1. Save the article to `output/articles/repo-article-${today}.md`. (If a hero image was generated via the Visual add-on, put `![hero](../images/repo-article-${today}.<ext>)` at the top.)
2. Append the consolidated log entry (see **Log**) **before** notifying.
3. Update the `Recent Articles` table in `memory/MEMORY.md` (Date | Title | Topic).
4. Notify via `./notify`:
   ```
   *[Article title]*

   Thesis: [one sentence]

   Read: [link to output/articles/repo-article-${today}.md in THIS repo — get the repo name from `git remote get-url origin`, not the watched repo]
   ```

### Banned phrase lexicon (repo angle)

Reject a draft that contains any of these. Match case-insensitively, whole phrase or obvious variant:
- "in today's fast-paced world"
- "leveraging" / "leverage" (as a verb meaning "use")
- "robust"
- "game-changer" / "game-changing"
- "under the hood" (unless the section actually walks through internals)
- "taking X to the next level"
- "at the end of the day"
- "diving into" / "deep dive"
- "delving into" / "delve"
- "comprehensive suite"
- "cutting-edge"
- "seamlessly" / "seamless"
- "empowers" / "empowering"
- "revolutionize" / "revolutionary"
- "unlock" (metaphorical, e.g. "unlocks new possibilities")
- "streamline" (as filler)
- "best-in-class"
- "paradigm shift"

If a banned phrase is the *most accurate* word in a technical context (e.g. actually describing leverage in a derivatives article), keep it and note the exemption in the log.

### Constraints (repo angle)

- Never publish without a thesis.
- Never pad to hit word count — 600 honest words beat 900 padded.
- Never fabricate a SHA, PR number, or quote. If real evidence isn't available, weaken the thesis or skip.

---

## Angle: lens — the project through a surprising lens

<!-- autoresearch: variation B — editorial discipline (research → falsifiable thesis → draft → self-edit with hard gates) -->

Writes articles that explain the project through a **different lens each time** — framed so a reader who's never heard of the project understands why it matters, via something they already care about. NOT a repo progress update (that's the **repo** angle above). `arg` is the lens (e.g. "unix philosophy", "regulation wave", "open source funding"); if empty, auto-select from trending topics + angle rotation.

Read before deciding anything: `memory/MEMORY.md`, the last 7 days of `memory/logs/`, `memory/watched-repos.md`, and `memory/project-lens-angles.md` (may not exist on first run — treat absence as empty history).

**Why models fail at this by default:** they slide into feature-listing wrapped in philosophical language, forced parallels with no mechanism, and marketing tone. This angle prevents that with a research → thesis → draft → self-edit pipeline where each phase has hard gates. If the gates can't pass, abort — don't publish a weak article.

### Phase 1 — Context

Read before deciding anything:
- Last 14 days of `output/articles/project-lens-*.md` and `memory/project-lens-angles.md` — know which angle categories and theses are exhausted.
- 2–3 most recent `output/articles/repo-article-*.md` and `output/articles/push-recap-*.md` — know what shipped lately.
- Repo state: `gh api repos/{owner}/{repo} --jq '{name, description, stargazers_count, forks_count, open_issues_count, updated_at}'`. If unreachable, continue with memory only and log the gap.

If `memory/watched-repos.md` is empty or missing, abort and notify: "project-lens: no watched repo configured."

### Phase 2 — Pick the lens

**If `arg` is set**, use it verbatim. Classify into one of the 8 categories below for logging.

**If `arg` is empty**:
1. Run 2–3 WebSearch queries on what's being debated right now in tech, crypto, AI, regulation, open source, or philosophy (e.g., `"AI agents" autonomy debate last 7 days`, `crypto regulation April 2026`, `open source funding model 2026`).
2. From results, identify 3 candidate angles with non-obvious connections to the project.
3. Pick the one that (a) hasn't appeared in the last 14 days **and** (b) has the strongest concrete connection. Record the choice and the rejected candidates with one-line reasons.

**Angle categories (no repeat within 14 days):**
1. **Current events** — Something happening this week/month.
2. **Philosophy / big ideas** — Unix philosophy, cathedral vs bazaar, composability, anti-fragility, skin in the game, swarm intelligence, etc.
3. **Industry comparison** — How a well-known company/project solved a similar problem differently.
4. **User story** — POV of a specific persona (solo dev, DAO, research lab, crypto community) with and without this tool.
5. **Contrarian take** — Challenge a common assumption; use project as evidence.
6. **Technical deep-dive for non-technical readers** — One architectural decision, plain language, bigger implications.
7. **Historical parallel** — Computing / internet / non-tech history with a concrete mechanism (not surface resemblance).
8. **Ecosystem map** — Where the project sits: adjacent, complementary, competing.

### Phase 3 — Research (gate: collect evidence before drafting)

**External side — required minimums:**
- 3+ WebSearch queries on the lens topic (different framings, not rew