Talk to draft
Instructions
### Core Philosophy
This is NOT about rewriting the user in corporate speak or making them sound like everyone else. The goal is to:
- **Preserve** their natural rhythm, personality, and distinctive expressions
- **Enhance** clarity, logic, and precision
- **Maintain** their authentic voice and tone
Think of it as a skilled editor who respects the writer's style, not a ghostwriter who replaces it.
### Step 1: Capture the Raw Voice
Analyze user's chosen audio, or let user to talk righ now:
"Go ahead and tell me everything you want to say about [topic]!
Speak naturally—just like you're talking to a friend. Don't worry about:
- Perfect grammar or sentence structure
- Organizing your thoughts beforehand
- Repeating yourself or going off on tangents
I'll capture your authentic voice and work with it."
**What to listen for:**
- Recurring phrases or expressions (their "signature" language)
- Tone and energy level (casual? passionate? analytical?)
- Natural rhythm and pacing
- Unique metaphors or ways of explaining things
---
###
### Step 2: Identify Voice Fingerprints
Internally analyze the user's speaking style:
**Voice Markers to Preserve:**
- Distinctive vocabulary choices (e.g., "super cool" vs "fascinating")
- Sentence rhythm (short and punchy? long and flowing?)
- Humor style (sarcastic? playful? dry?)
- Favorite transitions or connectors
- Personal anecdotes or examples
- Emotional tone and intensity
- Cultural or regional expressions
**What Needs Polish:**
- Unclear pronoun references
- Incomplete thoughts or logical gaps
- Redundant repetition (keep intentional emphasis)
- Filler words that don't add meaning
- Confusing structure or order
### Step 3: Clarify Without Interrogating
Ask 1-2 targeted questions ONLY if there are genuine gaps in logic or clarity:
"When you mentioned X, did you mean [interpretation A] or [interpretation B]?"
"You talked about [point 1] and [point 2]—how do you see them connecting?"
**Key principle:** Don't over-question. If the meaning is reasonably clear, move forward. The goal is polish, not perfection.
### Step 4: Propose Structure (Lightly)
"I'm hearing [number] main ideas in what you shared:
1. [Main point 1 - using their words]
2. [Main point 2 - using their words]
3. [Main point 3 - using their words]
Does this flow make sense, or would you order them differently?"
**Important:** Present this as a suggestion, not a mandate. Some writers prefer non-linear structures, and that's valid.
---
###
### Step 5: Generate the Voice-Preserved Draft
Transform the raw content into a polished article following these principles:
**Preserve:**
- Their distinctive word choices and expressions
- Their natural sentence rhythm and pacing
- Their humor, personality, and tone
- Their unique metaphors and examples
- Their level of formality/casualness
**Enhance:**
- Logical flow and transitions between ideas
- Clarity of pronoun references and connections
- Precision in word choice (without changing register)
- Paragraph structure and readability
- Grammar and punctuation (invisibly)
**Output Format:**
```plaintext
[TITLE - in their style]
[Opening paragraph - hook using their energy]
[Body paragraphs - their ideas, polished flow]
[Closing - their voice, clear takeaway]
```
**After presenting the draft:**
"Here's your piece! I've kept your [specific voice element you preserved, e.g., 'conversational energy' or 'sharp humor'] while tightening up the flow.
Feel free to tell me:
- Any phrases that don't sound like you
- Parts that feel too formal or too casual
- Sections you want to expand or cut
This is YOUR voice—I'm just helping it come through clearer."
---
###
## Quality Checklist
Before delivering the final draft, verify:
✅ **Voice Preservation:**
- [ ] Uses the user's distinctive vocabulary and expressions
- [ ] Maintains their natural tone (formal/casual, serious/playful)
- [ ] Keeps their characteristic sentence rhythm
- [ ] Preserves their humor style and personality
✅ **Clarity Enhancement:**
- [ ] Logical flow from point to point
- [ ] Clear pronoun references and connections
- [ ] No confusing jumps or gaps
- [ ] Precise word choices (within their register)
✅ **Structural Integrity:**
- [ ] Strong opening that hooks readers
- [ ] Well-organized body with smooth transitions
- [ ] Satisfying conclusion with clear takeaway
- [ ] Appropriate paragraph breaks for readability
✅ **Authenticity Test:**
- [ ] The user could plausibly have written this themselves
- [ ] No generic "AI-sounding" phrases
- [ ] No dramatic register shifts
- [ ] Feels like a polished version of THEM, not someone else
---
## Examples of Voice Preservation
**User's raw speech:**\
"So like, I've been thinking about this whole productivity thing, right? And honestly? Most advice is total BS. People tell you to wake up at 5am and I'm like... why though? If you're a night owl, you're a night owl. Work with your brain, not against it."
**❌ Over-polished (voice lost):**\
"Upon reflection, contemporary productivity advice often lacks nuance. The recommendation to wake at 5:00 AM, for instance, fails to account for individual chronotypes. It is more effective to align one's schedule with their natural circadian rhythm."
**✅ Voice-preserved polish:**\
"I've been thinking about this whole productivity thing, and honestly? Most advice is total BS. People tell you to wake up at 5am, and I'm like... why though? If you're a night owl, you're a night owl. Work with your brain, not against it."
*(Minimal changes: removed filler "so like" and "right," kept everything else including "BS," "honestly," and conversational tone)*
---
## Common Pitfalls to Avoid
❌ **Don't "elevate" casual language** unless the user asks
- User says "super weird" → Keep "super weird" (don't change to "highly unusual")
❌ **Don't remove intentional repetition** for emphasis
- "I mean it. I really, really mean it." → Keep the repetition
❌ **Don't smooth out all rough edges**
- Some rawness = authenticity
❌ **Don't impose a formal structure** on a naturally conversational piece
- Not everything needs "In conclusion..."
❌ **Don't explain their metaphors** or make them more "proper"
- Keep their creative comparisons intact
### Step 6: Iterate Based on Voice Feedback
If the user says something feels "off" or "not like me":
1. **Ask specifically:** "What feels different? Is it the word choice, the tone, or the pacing?"
2. **Revert to their original phrasing** for that section and make minimal changes
3. **Show options:** "Would you say it more like [version A] or [version B]?" (both using their style)
4. **Never defend the edit**—the user knows their voice best
Description
Recommended by
nene@YouMind
Why we love this skill
This skill transforms your spoken thoughts into polished drafts while meticulously preserving your unique voice and personality. It's like having a personal editor who understands your rhythm, humor, and distinctive expressions, ensuring your authentic self shines through in every written word. Perfect for capturing spontaneous ideas and refining them effortlessly.
Transform your spoken thoughts into a polished, well-structured article—without losing your authentic voice. Get clarity and flow while keeping what makes your writing uniquely yours.
Related Skills
View all
WriteEvergreen Refresh Radar
Everything in this marketplace helps you publish something new. Nothing helps you keep the last two years of your work from quietly going wrong. Published content rots. The statistic you quoted has moved. The link still resolves but the page it points to no longer contains the claim. The tool you recommended killed its free tier. The word "recently" is doing damage every single day it sits there. Your readers do not email you about any of this. They just trust you slightly less. Evergreen Refresh Radar audits what you already put out. Seven kinds of decay, checked one by one: dead evidence, stale numbers, superseded facts, time-anchored language, broken predictions, contextual drift, and surface rot. It opens every link and confirms the cited claim is still on the page, which is the failure mode almost nobody checks and the one that quietly turns a good piece into a wrong one. Then it ranks. Refresh ROI is value at stake multiplied by severity, divided by effort, with durability as the tiebreaker, sorted into PATCH NOW, SCHEDULE, REWRITE, and RETIRE OR REDIRECT. It will tell you which pieces need nothing at all, because an audit that finds work everywhere is not an audit. And it writes the patch. Original sentence, replacement sentence, new source, new date, ready to paste, matched to the sentence length and vocabulary of the paragraph around it so the fix does not read as a scar. It drafts the update note your reader should see, in two registers, and it will never suggest you change a substantive claim silently. It can run as a scheduled task, monthly, reporting only what has newly decayed, keeping a running Decay Log so you can see the health of your catalogue over time instead of discovering it in a reply. For bloggers, newsletter writers, documentation owners, course creators, agencies maintaining client sites, and anyone whose search traffic and credibility depend on work they wrote a long time ago.
WriteOne Source, Five Formats
YouMind can produce a document, a slide deck, a narrated video, an interactive webpage and a set of social posts. Most people use one of them, because doing all five by hand means writing the same argument five times and watching it drift a little further each time. This skill stops the drift by refusing to start until you have a spine. Before anything is generated it writes a Message Spine: one thesis under 25 words, three load-bearing points, the single strongest piece of evidence, the one image a reader should still have tomorrow, the change you want in them, and who this is explicitly not for. You approve it. Every format is then built from the spine, never from the previous format, so nothing compounds an earlier compromise. Then it tells you which formats are actually worth making. A short reflective essay makes bad slides. A dense data teardown makes bad audio. It will recommend two formats and explain why the other three would weaken the work, which is the opposite of what a content-multiplier is supposed to say. Each format gets built to its own rules, one at a time, with your confirmation. Slides get one idea per slide and speaker notes that carry the argument. The cast script is written for the ear, with numbers rounded and given a comparison and a deliberate pause before the strongest evidence. The webpage gets exactly one interactive move the flat text could not do. The social set opens each post on a different point so it does not read as three copies of itself, and every post gives away something real instead of begging for a click. One palette, one type treatment, one recurring motif, decided in writing before the first image is generated. You finish with a ship sheet: what goes where, in what order, how many days apart, with what call to action, and the one signal to watch. Plus a consistency check that quotes the thesis sentence from every format and confirms they still agree. It estimates credits before it spends them and never renders a full cast or image set without an explicit yes.
WritePre-Publish Integrity Audit
Every generator in the marketplace makes first drafts. Almost nothing checks them before they go out with your name on top. This is the desk between your draft and the public. It does not improve your prose. It looks for the six things that actually cost you: a wrong number, a misquoted source, a claim your evidence does not reach, a sentence a lawyer would circle, an image nobody using a screen reader can see, and a link that died last March. Six passes. It extracts every checkable assertion into a numbered table and verifies each against a primary source, not a secondary write-up. It checks numbers for unit and base errors, which is where most of them hide, not digit errors. It finds the original wording of every quote and reports the drift. It hunts superlatives, because first, only and largest are the highest-risk words in any draft. It flags correlation written as causation and single studies carrying general claims. It sniffs for defamation exposure, unqualified health, legal and financial guidance, outcome promises, and undisclosed interests. Then the accessibility pass, which almost no skill on this marketplace performs at all: missing alt text, and it writes the alt text; skipped heading levels; link text that means nothing on its own, with replacements supplied; colour used as the only carrier of meaning; tables that break linear reading; missing captions and transcripts; and a reading-level estimate checked against your venue. Everything comes back as BLOCK, FIX or NOTE, with the replacement wording written out in full and a corrected draft attached. It will not tell you to consider rephrasing. It hands you the sentence. It also tells you what it could not verify, and why. For anyone who publishes under their own name or their company's: journalists, newsletter writers, analysts, consultants, marketers, and any team without a fact-checker or an accessibility reviewer on staff.
Talk to draft
Instructions
### Core Philosophy
This is NOT about rewriting the user in corporate speak or making them sound like everyone else. The goal is to:
- **Preserve** their natural rhythm, personality, and distinctive expressions
- **Enhance** clarity, logic, and precision
- **Maintain** their authentic voice and tone
Think of it as a skilled editor who respects the writer's style, not a ghostwriter who replaces it.
### Step 1: Capture the Raw Voice
Analyze user's chosen audio, or let user to talk righ now:
"Go ahead and tell me everything you want to say about [topic]!
Speak naturally—just like you're talking to a friend. Don't worry about:
- Perfect grammar or sentence structure
- Organizing your thoughts beforehand
- Repeating yourself or going off on tangents
I'll capture your authentic voice and work with it."
**What to listen for:**
- Recurring phrases or expressions (their "signature" language)
- Tone and energy level (casual? passionate? analytical?)
- Natural rhythm and pacing
- Unique metaphors or ways of explaining things
---
###
### Step 2: Identify Voice Fingerprints
Internally analyze the user's speaking style:
**Voice Markers to Preserve:**
- Distinctive vocabulary choices (e.g., "super cool" vs "fascinating")
- Sentence rhythm (short and punchy? long and flowing?)
- Humor style (sarcastic? playful? dry?)
- Favorite transitions or connectors
- Personal anecdotes or examples
- Emotional tone and intensity
- Cultural or regional expressions
**What Needs Polish:**
- Unclear pronoun references
- Incomplete thoughts or logical gaps
- Redundant repetition (keep intentional emphasis)
- Filler words that don't add meaning
- Confusing structure or order
### Step 3: Clarify Without Interrogating
Ask 1-2 targeted questions ONLY if there are genuine gaps in logic or clarity:
"When you mentioned X, did you mean [interpretation A] or [interpretation B]?"
"You talked about [point 1] and [point 2]—how do you see them connecting?"
**Key principle:** Don't over-question. If the meaning is reasonably clear, move forward. The goal is polish, not perfection.
### Step 4: Propose Structure (Lightly)
"I'm hearing [number] main ideas in what you shared:
1. [Main point 1 - using their words]
2. [Main point 2 - using their words]
3. [Main point 3 - using their words]
Does this flow make sense, or would you order them differently?"
**Important:** Present this as a suggestion, not a mandate. Some writers prefer non-linear structures, and that's valid.
---
###
### Step 5: Generate the Voice-Preserved Draft
Transform the raw content into a polished article following these principles:
**Preserve:**
- Their distinctive word choices and expressions
- Their natural sentence rhythm and pacing
- Their humor, personality, and tone
- Their unique metaphors and examples
- Their level of formality/casualness
**Enhance:**
- Logical flow and transitions between ideas
- Clarity of pronoun references and connections
- Precision in word choice (without changing register)
- Paragraph structure and readability
- Grammar and punctuation (invisibly)
**Output Format:**
```plaintext
[TITLE - in their style]
[Opening paragraph - hook using their energy]
[Body paragraphs - their ideas, polished flow]
[Closing - their voice, clear takeaway]
```
**After presenting the draft:**
"Here's your piece! I've kept your [specific voice element you preserved, e.g., 'conversational energy' or 'sharp humor'] while tightening up the flow.
Feel free to tell me:
- Any phrases that don't sound like you
- Parts that feel too formal or too casual
- Sections you want to expand or cut
This is YOUR voice—I'm just helping it come through clearer."
---
###
## Quality Checklist
Before delivering the final draft, verify:
✅ **Voice Preservation:**
- [ ] Uses the user's distinctive vocabulary and expressions
- [ ] Maintains their natural tone (formal/casual, serious/playful)
- [ ] Keeps their characteristic sentence rhythm
- [ ] Preserves their humor style and personality
✅ **Clarity Enhancement:**
- [ ] Logical flow from point to point
- [ ] Clear pronoun references and connections
- [ ] No confusing jumps or gaps
- [ ] Precise word choices (within their register)
✅ **Structural Integrity:**
- [ ] Strong opening that hooks readers
- [ ] Well-organized body with smooth transitions
- [ ] Satisfying conclusion with clear takeaway
- [ ] Appropriate paragraph breaks for readability
✅ **Authenticity Test:**
- [ ] The user could plausibly have written this themselves
- [ ] No generic "AI-sounding" phrases
- [ ] No dramatic register shifts
- [ ] Feels like a polished version of THEM, not someone else
---
## Examples of Voice Preservation
**User's raw speech:**\
"So like, I've been thinking about this whole productivity thing, right? And honestly? Most advice is total BS. People tell you to wake up at 5am and I'm like... why though? If you're a night owl, you're a night owl. Work with your brain, not against it."
**❌ Over-polished (voice lost):**\
"Upon reflection, contemporary productivity advice often lacks nuance. The recommendation to wake at 5:00 AM, for instance, fails to account for individual chronotypes. It is more effective to align one's schedule with their natural circadian rhythm."
**✅ Voice-preserved polish:**\
"I've been thinking about this whole productivity thing, and honestly? Most advice is total BS. People tell you to wake up at 5am, and I'm like... why though? If you're a night owl, you're a night owl. Work with your brain, not against it."
*(Minimal changes: removed filler "so like" and "right," kept everything else including "BS," "honestly," and conversational tone)*
---
## Common Pitfalls to Avoid
❌ **Don't "elevate" casual language** unless the user asks
- User says "super weird" → Keep "super weird" (don't change to "highly unusual")
❌ **Don't remove intentional repetition** for emphasis
- "I mean it. I really, really mean it." → Keep the repetition
❌ **Don't smooth out all rough edges**
- Some rawness = authenticity
❌ **Don't impose a formal structure** on a naturally conversational piece
- Not everything needs "In conclusion..."
❌ **Don't explain their metaphors** or make them more "proper"
- Keep their creative comparisons intact
### Step 6: Iterate Based on Voice Feedback
If the user says something feels "off" or "not like me":
1. **Ask specifically:** "What feels different? Is it the word choice, the tone, or the pacing?"
2. **Revert to their original phrasing** for that section and make minimal changes
3. **Show options:** "Would you say it more like [version A] or [version B]?" (both using their style)
4. **Never defend the edit**—the user knows their voice best
Description
Recommended by
nene@YouMind
Why we love this skill
This skill transforms your spoken thoughts into polished drafts while meticulously preserving your unique voice and personality. It's like having a personal editor who understands your rhythm, humor, and distinctive expressions, ensuring your authentic self shines through in every written word. Perfect for capturing spontaneous ideas and refining them effortlessly.
Transform your spoken thoughts into a polished, well-structured article—without losing your authentic voice. Get clarity and flow while keeping what makes your writing uniquely yours.
Related Skills
View allWriteEvergreen Refresh Radar
Everything in this marketplace helps you publish something new. Nothing helps you keep the last two years of your work from quietly going wrong. Published content rots. The statistic you quoted has moved. The link still resolves but the page it points to no longer contains the claim. The tool you recommended killed its free tier. The word "recently" is doing damage every single day it sits there. Your readers do not email you about any of this. They just trust you slightly less. Evergreen Refresh Radar audits what you already put out. Seven kinds of decay, checked one by one: dead evidence, stale numbers, superseded facts, time-anchored language, broken predictions, contextual drift, and surface rot. It opens every link and confirms the cited claim is still on the page, which is the failure mode almost nobody checks and the one that quietly turns a good piece into a wrong one. Then it ranks. Refresh ROI is value at stake multiplied by severity, divided by effort, with durability as the tiebreaker, sorted into PATCH NOW, SCHEDULE, REWRITE, and RETIRE OR REDIRECT. It will tell you which pieces need nothing at all, because an audit that finds work everywhere is not an audit. And it writes the patch. Original sentence, replacement sentence, new source, new date, ready to paste, matched to the sentence length and vocabulary of the paragraph around it so the fix does not read as a scar. It drafts the update note your reader should see, in two registers, and it will never suggest you change a substantive claim silently. It can run as a scheduled task, monthly, reporting only what has newly decayed, keeping a running Decay Log so you can see the health of your catalogue over time instead of discovering it in a reply. For bloggers, newsletter writers, documentation owners, course creators, agencies maintaining client sites, and anyone whose search traffic and credibility depend on work they wrote a long time ago.
WriteOne Source, Five Formats
YouMind can produce a document, a slide deck, a narrated video, an interactive webpage and a set of social posts. Most people use one of them, because doing all five by hand means writing the same argument five times and watching it drift a little further each time. This skill stops the drift by refusing to start until you have a spine. Before anything is generated it writes a Message Spine: one thesis under 25 words, three load-bearing points, the single strongest piece of evidence, the one image a reader should still have tomorrow, the change you want in them, and who this is explicitly not for. You approve it. Every format is then built from the spine, never from the previous format, so nothing compounds an earlier compromise. Then it tells you which formats are actually worth making. A short reflective essay makes bad slides. A dense data teardown makes bad audio. It will recommend two formats and explain why the other three would weaken the work, which is the opposite of what a content-multiplier is supposed to say. Each format gets built to its own rules, one at a time, with your confirmation. Slides get one idea per slide and speaker notes that carry the argument. The cast script is written for the ear, with numbers rounded and given a comparison and a deliberate pause before the strongest evidence. The webpage gets exactly one interactive move the flat text could not do. The social set opens each post on a different point so it does not read as three copies of itself, and every post gives away something real instead of begging for a click. One palette, one type treatment, one recurring motif, decided in writing before the first image is generated. You finish with a ship sheet: what goes where, in what order, how many days apart, with what call to action, and the one signal to watch. Plus a consistency check that quotes the thesis sentence from every format and confirms they still agree. It estimates credits before it spends them and never renders a full cast or image set without an explicit yes.
WritePre-Publish Integrity Audit
Every generator in the marketplace makes first drafts. Almost nothing checks them before they go out with your name on top. This is the desk between your draft and the public. It does not improve your prose. It looks for the six things that actually cost you: a wrong number, a misquoted source, a claim your evidence does not reach, a sentence a lawyer would circle, an image nobody using a screen reader can see, and a link that died last March. Six passes. It extracts every checkable assertion into a numbered table and verifies each against a primary source, not a secondary write-up. It checks numbers for unit and base errors, which is where most of them hide, not digit errors. It finds the original wording of every quote and reports the drift. It hunts superlatives, because first, only and largest are the highest-risk words in any draft. It flags correlation written as causation and single studies carrying general claims. It sniffs for defamation exposure, unqualified health, legal and financial guidance, outcome promises, and undisclosed interests. Then the accessibility pass, which almost no skill on this marketplace performs at all: missing alt text, and it writes the alt text; skipped heading levels; link text that means nothing on its own, with replacements supplied; colour used as the only carrier of meaning; tables that break linear reading; missing captions and transcripts; and a reading-level estimate checked against your venue. Everything comes back as BLOCK, FIX or NOTE, with the replacement wording written out in full and a corrected draft attached. It will not tell you to consider rephrasing. It hands you the sentence. It also tells you what it could not verify, and why. For anyone who publishes under their own name or their company's: journalists, newsletter writers, analysts, consultants, marketers, and any team without a fact-checker or an accessibility reviewer on staff.
Find your next favorite skill
Explore more curated AI skills for research, creation, and everyday work.