Written Communication
Scope
Covers
- Turning messy notes into a clear email, memo, doc, or async update
- Making the “how” explicit (what happens next, by whom, by when)
- Editing for clarity at scale (scanability, definitions, single source of truth)
- Creating/maintaining a canonical doc for an ongoing project
When to use
- “Draft an email to stakeholders explaining a change and what I need from them.”
- “Turn these bullets into a 1-page memo with a recommendation and next steps.”
- “Rewrite this doc to be clearer, shorter, and more actionable.”
- “Create a canonical doc as the source of truth for this project.”
When NOT to use
- You need marketing/brand copy (landing pages, ads) more than internal/executive clarity.
- You need a full product spec/PRD from scratch (use
writing-prdsorwriting-specs-designs). - You’re writing legal/HR/regulated communications without expert review.
- The real issue is alignment via facilitation (you may need a meeting/offsite plan, not a rewrite).
Inputs
Minimum required
- Artifact type + channel (email / memo / doc / status update; where it will live)
- Audience (roles/seniority) + what they care about
- Goal + ask (inform/align/decide; what you want the reader to do, by when)
- Key context (facts, constraints, timeline, links) + what must be avoided (sensitivities)
- Source material (notes, existing draft, Slack threads, etc.)
Missing-info strategy
- Ask up to 5 questions from references/INTAKE.md (3–5 at a time), then proceed.
- If critical info remains missing, make explicit assumptions and offer 2–3 options (structure/tone/ask).
Outputs (deliverables)
Produce a Written Communication Pack in Markdown (in-chat; or as files if requested):
- Message brief (audience, goal, ask, constraints)
- Outline (TL;DR + key points + “how/next steps”)
- Draft artifact (email/memo/doc/status update) in final-ready format
- Canonical doc skeleton (optional; when the project needs a single source of truth)
- Risks / Open questions / Next steps (always)
Templates: references/TEMPLATES.md Expanded guidance: references/WORKFLOW.md
Workflow (8 steps)
1) Intake + choose the lightest artifact
- Inputs: user request + references/INTAKE.md.
- Actions: Clarify the channel and pick the smallest artifact that works (email vs memo vs doc vs status update vs canonical doc).
- Outputs: Message brief (draft) + artifact selection.
- Checks: You can answer: “Who is this for, and what should they do after reading?”
2) Lock the reader outcome + ask (one sentence)
- Inputs: brief.
- Actions: Write one sentence: “After reading, the audience will ____.” Make the ask explicit (decision/options, approval, feedback, or FYI) and include a deadline if relevant.
- Outputs: Outcome/ask line + decision/feedback request.
- Checks: The ask is unambiguous and doesn’t require a meeting to interpret.
3) Convert “what/why” into “how” (actionable next steps)
- Inputs: source material + outcome/ask.
- Actions: Identify the 3–7 concrete steps, responsibilities, and dependencies. If proposing a change, include what changes, what stays the same, and what happens next.
- Outputs: “How / Next steps” bullets (owner + date where possible).
- Checks: A reader could execute without asking “so what do you want me to do?”
4) Structure for skim (clarity at scale)
- Inputs: brief + next steps.
- Actions: Create a TL;DR, then headings in the order readers scan: Ask → Context → Details → Next steps. Use bullets, short paragraphs, and explicit labels.
- Outputs: Outline with headings.
- Checks: A skim-reader can capture the point in < 60 seconds.
5) Draft the artifact (write to be forwarded)
- Inputs: outline + templates.
- Actions: Draft in plain language; avoid jargon; put key numbers and decisions in writing. If this is ongoing work, link to (or create) the canonical doc.
- Outputs: Draft email/memo/doc/status update.
- Checks: The draft is safe to forward; it stands alone without verbal context.
6) “Letter to yourself” clarity pass (then rewrite for the audience)
- Inputs: draft.
- Actions: If the content is fuzzy, write a quick internal version (“what am I actually saying?”), then rewrite in the audience’s language and incentives.
- Outputs: Clarified rewrite with cleaner logic.
- Checks: The message has a single through-line; no contradictions or buried ledes.
7) Canonical doc check (single source of truth)
- Inputs: draft + project context.
- Actions: If readers will keep asking “where is the latest?”, create/update a canonical doc (links, owners, last updated, decisions, next update cadence).
- Outputs: Canonical doc skeleton or link section.
- Checks: There is one obvious place to find the current state and decisions.
8) Quality gate + finalize
- Inputs: full pack.
- Actions: Run references/CHECKLISTS.md and score with references/RUBRIC.md. Add Risks/Open questions/Next steps.
- Outputs: Final Written Communication Pack.
- Checks: Clarity, actionability, and ownership meet the bar (≥ 3 on each rubric dimension).
Quality gate (required)
- Use references/CHECKLISTS.md and references/RUBRIC.md.
- Always include: Risks, Open questions, Next steps.
Examples
Example 1 (stakeholder email): “Draft an email to exec stakeholders: the launch is slipping 2 weeks; we need approval to cut scope and a decision by Friday.” Expected: TL;DR + explicit ask/options + what changes + next steps with owners.
Example 2 (project memo + canonical doc): “Turn these notes into a 1-page memo that aligns the team on the new onboarding approach, and create a canonical doc outline for ongoing updates.” Expected: memo with recommendation + tradeoffs + next steps, plus a source-of-truth doc skeleton.
Boundary example: “Write a legal/HR disciplinary notice.” Response: decline to fabricate legal/HR guidance; request expert review; offer to help with neutral structure, tone, and clarity if the user provides approved language.