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-prds or writing-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.