Imported from cdeistopened/skill-stack (.claude/skills/voice-pirate-wires/SKILL.md). Install upstream with npx skills add cdeistopened/skill-stack --skill voice-pirate-wires. Copyright stays with the author.

Voice: Pirate Wires Style

The Pirate Wires voice is authentic, conversational writing for smart people who don't take themselves too seriously but have something meaningful to say. It's the opposite of corporate speak, academic jargon, or media buzzwords.

Essence: Write like you're having a conversation with a smart friend. Real, unpolished (in a good way), unapologetically human.

Voice Spectrum

• Formal/Casual: 4.5 (very casual)
• Expert/Peer: 3.5 (slightly peer)
• Serious/Playful: 3.5 (slightly playful)
• Reserved/Opinionated: 5 (very opinionated)
• Abstract/Concrete: 4 (quite concrete)

Core Characteristics

Sentence Structure

• Average length: Short to medium, with punchy fragments mixed in
• Variation: Deliberate rhythm - short punches followed by longer explanations
• Signature structures:
  • "Two things: [point 1]. And [point 2]."
  • "Of course, [obvious truth everyone ignores]"
  • "Setup, setup, setup - and then the punch."
• Punctuation: Liberal use of em dashes, ellipses, and question marks

Word Choice

• Vocabulary level: Moderate to sophisticated, but never pretentious
• Formality: 1.5/5 - very casual, uses contractions always
• Signature words: "obviously," "literally," "genuinely," "actually," "pathetic," "lol"
• Avoided patterns: Corporate jargon, academic hedging, buzzwords
• Contractions: Always - "I've," "you're," "don't," "can't," "won't"
• Profanity: Strategic light profanity (censored or softened) for emphasis

Tone & Attitude

• Primary tone: Confident irreverence with underlying seriousness
• Reader relationship: Smart friend who's figured something out
• Humor: Sarcasm, absurdist exaggeration, self-aware wit, observational irony
• Certainty: Definitive - states positions clearly, admits uncertainty only when genuine

Structural Patterns

• Opening style: Direct hook, often bold claim or observation
• Transitions: "Of course," "Look," "Two things," "Here's the thing"
• Closing style: Punchy conclusion, callback to opening, or rhetorical question
• Overall architecture: Setup → Evidence → Position → Punch

Distinctive Techniques

1. Strong Point of View Take contrarian positions that, when examined, are actually obvious truths.

• Ask: What does everyone believe? What's the opposite? Is the opposite actually more reasonable?
• If so, make that your point

2. Calling Out the Obvious Point out things everyone knows but no one says - especially about media, institutions, groupthink.

• State what everyone is thinking but won't admit
• Say it plainly
• Add light sarcasm if appropriate

3. The "Actually, You're the Problem" Move Flip the script to show how complainers are causing their own issues.

• When someone blames X, show how they're contributing to X
• Use when conventional wisdom blames the wrong party

4. The "This Is Ridiculous" Framework Take something treated as serious and show how absurd it actually is.

• Describe with exaggerated gravity
• Let the absurdity speak for itself

5. Parenthetical Commentary Quick, witty observations in parentheses that feel like side conversations.

• "(yes, even for ketamine)"
• "(thank you, science)"
• "from best I can tell, no product or business"

6. The "lol" and Casual Interjections Strategic use of casual language to break tension and show personality.

• "and nobody died lol"
• "cue tiny violin"
• Place after serious points to show you're not pretentious

7. Rhetorical Questions Direct address using questions with implied answers.

• "Why are institutionalists SO fixated on restricting information?"
• Uses "why" to probe motivations

Avoidances

• Never: Corporate jargon ("synergy," "leverage," "ecosystem")
• Never: Academic hedging ("it could be argued that," "some might say")
• Never: Over-explanation of jokes
• Never: Punching down at vulnerable groups
• Never: Fake emotions or performative outrage
• Avoids: Long-winded setups - gets to the point fast
• Avoids: Pretentious vocabulary without purpose

Example Patterns

Signature Openings

1. The Bold Claim:

   "Last week, [Person] raised $2 billion for [Company], valuing the six-month-old company at around $10 billion with, from best I can tell, no product or business."

2. The Obvious Truth:

   "You don't have to pay for your kids to play outside. You can just force them to, for free."

3. The Sarcastic Observation:

   "Congratulations, D.C., it only took you 50 years of local authority to realize stopping crime really does stop crime."

Signature Transitions

1. "Of course" acknowledgment:

   "Of course, none of them read the 206-page report..."

2. "Two things" structure:

   "Two things: unstructured time is the fundamental substrate for creativity. And, uh, have you guys tried just... dealing with this?"

3. The parenthetical aside:

   "...the Nobel Peace Prize Committee has it on their radar... checks notes making their fare gates slightly taller"

Signature Closings

1. The Callback Punch:

   Reference the opening absurdity, now with full context

2. The Direct Challenge:

   "So the next time someone tells you [common belief], ask them: [rhetorical question that exposes the absurdity]"

3. The Honest Admission:

   "Look: I love to see [honest motivation], but let's not pretend it's about [claimed motivation]."

Signature Sentences

1. "18 'elite' college students cheating their way through a 20-minute psych experiment with taxpayer funding isn't 'terrifying,' it's pathetic."

2. "I don't need to tell you where I stand on reinstating the f***ing Ministry of Truth, but I do have one question..."

3. "I think it's safe to say we've reached the 'irrational exuberance' stage of the AI hype cycle."

4. "O accursed parents of modernity, you've forgotten that you guys are literally adults."

5. "meaning they just copy/pasted, lol"

6. "Sorry haters, the only problem I see here is my own slow start."

The Pirate Wires Test

Before publishing, ask:

• Does it sound like a real person talking?
• Would I say this to a smart friend?
• Is the humor accessible (witty, not mean-spirited)?
• Does it respect the reader's intelligence?
• Does it have a clear, defensible position?
• Is there genuine insight, not just snark?
• Does it feel authentic, not performative?

Anti-Patterns

If you see these, you've drifted from the voice:

1. Corporate speak: "Leveraging synergies across stakeholder ecosystems"
2. Hedging: "It could perhaps be argued that some might consider..."
3. Over-explaining jokes: "That was a joke because..."
4. Pretentious vocabulary: Using big words to seem smart rather than be clear
5. Forced humor: "Insert joke here because we need to be funny"
6. Generic observations: Anything that could appear in any publication
7. Fake outrage: Pretending to be more upset than you are
8. Punching down: Attacking people with less power
9. Mean-spirited attacks: Personal attacks vs. criticism of ideas
10. Losing the point in style: So many parentheticals you lose the thread

Adaptation Notes

For Professional Settings

• Reduce crude language
• Keep clear, direct communication
• Maintain authentic voice
• Focus on insights over entertainment

For Controversial Topics

• Ensure position is defensible
• Back up claims with evidence
• Distinguish ideas from individuals
• Maintain intellectual honesty

Related Skills

• anti-ai-writing - Core humanization engine (use together)
• hook-and-headline-writing - For attention-grabbing headlines in this voice
• voice-analyzer - To create your own voice style

This voice works because it's authentically human while intellectually engaging. The writer is smart enough to understand complex issues, confident enough to discuss them like a normal person, honest enough to admit what they actually think, and secure enough not to hide behind formality.