op_ed_writing v1.0.0

name: "op_ed_writing" description: > Write opinion pieces meant for publication: a thesis-first lede that states your take in the opening paragraphs, a structure that builds stakes and evidence, honest sourcing, a steelmanned counterargument you actually answer, a close that tells the reader what to think or do, and editor pitch basics with a short pitch email template. Use when someone wants to place a signed take in a newspaper, magazine, or online outlet, not when they need an academic essay or a corporate announcement. metadata: { "includeInPrompt": true }

Purpose

This skill turns a held opinion into a publishable op-ed: a signed piece of opinion journalism aimed at a publication's readers. An op-ed is not an academic exercise and not PR. It has a byline, it takes a position, and it earns its place by being timely, specific, and argued well enough that an editor wants to run it.

Not this skill:

• essay-writing: "Crafts AP/college-level academic essays: arguable thesis, structured argument, evidence integration (ICE method), concessions, and multi-pass revision. Triggers on essay requests, writing assignments, prompts to argue or analyze a topic, and editing existing drafts." (academic angle; graded by a teacher, not pitched to an editor)
• press-release-writing: "Write press releases that editors will actually run: the newsworthiness bar, inverted-pyramid structure, headline and boilerplate craft, quotes with substance, and embargo and distribution timing. Triggers when drafting a press release, announcing a launch, preparing a company statement, or pitching news to media." (PR angle; speaks for an organization, not a signed opinion)

Workflow

1. Find the take. One sentence, with a verb. "The city should ban right turns on red downtown" is a take. "Traffic safety is complicated" is not. If the sentence could end with "on the other hand," it is not ready.
2. Check the news hook. Editors buy opinion because of timing. Name the event, decision, anniversary, or trend your take responds to, and say why it matters this week, not last year. No hook, no pitch.
3. Write the thesis-first lede. The take lands in the first or second paragraph. Open with the hook, then state the position plainly. Burying the thesis at paragraph five is the most common reason op-eds get rejected.
4. Build stakes before evidence. After the lede, show what is at stake and for whom: costs, people affected, what happens if nothing changes. Then bring the evidence: 2 to 4 strong, verifiable facts or examples that support the take. See Operating Rules on sourcing.
5. Steel-man the counterargument. Write the strongest version of the other side's case, the version its smartest defender would recognize. Then answer it with evidence, not dismissal. A steelman builds credibility; a strawman burns it.
6. Close with a direction. Tell the reader what should be thought or done: support the policy, change a habit, reconsider a belief. End on the consequence, not a summary.
7. Draft, then cut. Most outlets run roughly 700 to 900 words; check the target publication's submission guidelines for its exact limit and format rules. Write long, then cut to the limit. Cut anecdotes and qualifiers before cutting evidence.
8. Pitch it. Send a short pitch email (template below) with your one-sentence thesis, the news hook, your credentials, and word count. Pitch one editor at a time; simultaneous submissions are standard to avoid unless the outlet says otherwise. If rejected, revise and pitch elsewhere.

Output Contract

Every op-ed draft this skill produces includes:

• The byline name and the target publication.
• A thesis stated in the first two paragraphs.
• A news hook named explicitly (what happened, and when).
• 2 to 4 cited sources for factual claims, each checkable by the reader. Source names inline; full citations or links collected at the end.
• A steelman paragraph that states the strongest opposing case fairly, followed by a direct rebuttal.
• A closing paragraph that names the action or conclusion for the reader.
• Word count within the target publication's stated range (default 700 to 900 if no guideline found).

Every pitch email produced includes: subject line, one-sentence thesis, why now, why you, and word count.

Operating Rules

• Thesis up top. State the take in paragraph one or two. No throat-clearing openers ("Since the dawn of..."), no saving the point for the end.
• Evidence discipline. Cite real sources. Never invent a statistic, quote, study, or anecdote. If a fact cannot be sourced, cut it or downgrade the claim to clearly marked opinion. A single fabricated number destroys the piece and the writer's credibility.
• One argument per piece. If two takes compete for space, pick the stronger one and save the other for a separate pitch.
• Write like a person. Concrete nouns, active verbs, short sentences mixed with longer ones. Avoid jargon, hedging stacks ("it may potentially suggest"), and filler phrases that add nothing.
• Steel-man, don't strawman. The counterargument paragraph must be something a smart opponent would endorse. If the rebuttal only works against a weak version, find the stronger version and answer that.
• Respect the reader's intelligence. No preaching, no flattery, no rhetorical questions that answer themselves. Readers smell condescension fast.
• No outlet-specific claims from memory. Word counts, submission emails, and response times vary by publication and change often. Always tell the reader to check the target outlet's current submission guidelines; never state a specific outlet's limit as fact unless you have the guideline in front of you.

Pitch email template (inline)

Subject: Op-ed pitch: [one-sentence thesis, under 12 words]

Hi [editor name],

[One sentence: the thesis.] [Two to three sentences: the news hook, why this matters now, and the core evidence or experience behind the piece.]

I'm [name], [one line of credential: job, expertise, or relevant lived experience]. Word count: [number].

Happy to file on your timeline.

Best, [Name] [Phone] · [Email]

Worked example (FICTIONAL)

The following is a fictional miniature op-ed, marked as such, to show the structure. It contains no invented statistics or quotes.

The school board should stop starting the year with a supply list

By J. M. Carter

Last Tuesday, the Riverside school board approved next year's budget, and buried on page forty was a familiar line: families are expected to supply their own classroom materials again. Here is a better plan. The district should buy supplies in bulk and stop handing parents a list.

The stakes are not abstract. Teachers say the first week of school is lost to sorting donated tissues and pencils, and the kids who arrive empty-handed know exactly what that signals. A bulk purchase costs less per student than fifty separate shopping trips, and it ends the quiet sorting of children into those whose parents could buy the brand-name markers and those whose parents could not.

The fair objection is that bulk buying raises the budget line the board has to defend, and taxpayers are right to watch that number. But the money is already being spent, just inefficiently and invisibly, by hundreds of families buying retail. Moving that spending into one contract lowers the total and makes it visible.

Buy it in bulk, put it in the budget, and let the first week of school be about school.

Note how the example follows the contract: thesis in paragraph two, hook in the lede, stakes, the strongest opposing case stated fairly and answered, and a close that names the action.