Extract and document a writer's distinctive voice patterns for consistent reproduction. Creates a "voice guide" that enables authentic writing that sounds like the source, not a generic approximation.
Works with
AI-first code editor with Composer
Before installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:
node --versionvoice-analysisExecute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:
Fetches voice-analysis from jwynia/agent-skills and configures it for Cursor.
The CLI shows a list of agents. Use arrow keys and space to select Cursor:
Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:
Restart Cursor to activate voice-analysis. Access via /voice-analysis in your agent's command palette.
We perform automated surface-level scans (Gen AI Scanner, Socket, Snyk) during installation. These checks detect common vulnerabilities but do not guarantee complete security. Always review skill source code and verify the publisher's reputation before production use.
Skills execute code in your environment. Always review source, verify the publisher, and test in isolation before production.
Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning
Create detailed user stories, acceptance criteria, and feature specs
Example
Generate user stories for 'password reset feature' with acceptance criteria, edge cases, and test scenarios
Reduce spec writing time by 50%, ensure comprehensive coverage
Research competitors, compare features, identify gaps
Example
Analyze 5 competitor products, create feature comparison matrix, suggest differentiation opportunities
Complete competitive research in 2 hours instead of 2 days
Evaluate features using frameworks (RICE, ICE, Kano) and create prioritized backlogs
Example
Score 20 feature ideas using RICE framework, generate prioritized roadmap with rationale
2
total installs
2
this week
46
GitHub stars
0
upvotes
Run in your terminal
2
installs
2
this week
46
stars
Extract and document a writer's distinctive voice patterns for consistent reproduction. Creates a "voice guide" that enables authentic writing that sounds like the source, not a generic approximation.
Capture spirit, not just mechanics. The goal is writing that makes the source say "yes, that's me" not "I guess that's accurate."
Peak Voice - Writing they identify as "most them"
Off-Voice - Writing that doesn't represent them well
Different Contexts:
Rewrite Exercise: Ask: "Rewrite this neutral paragraph in your voice:"
"The new policy will be implemented next month. It includes several changes to current procedures. Employees should review documentation and submit questions by the deadline."
Rule Breaking: "What writing 'rules' do you consistently ignore? Why?"
Pet Peeves: "What writing choices immediately signal something wasn't written by you?"
Evolution: "How has your writing changed in 5 years? What stayed constant?"
| Pattern | What to Track |
|---|---|
| Average length | Words per sentence |
| Range | Shortest to longest |
| Fragments | Usage frequency, contexts |
| Run-ons | Tendency, intentionality |
| Opening patterns | How sentences typically start |
| Closing patterns | How sentences typically end |
| Element | What to Track |
|---|---|
| Average length | Sentences per paragraph |
| Topic sentences | Beginning, middle, end, absent |
| Transitions | Explicit words, implicit flow, abrupt |
| Information order | Build-up, front-load, circular |
| Mark | Track Usage Pattern |
|---|---|
| Em dash | Interruption, emphasis, list, asides |
| Parentheses | Frequency, content type |
| Semicolon | Presence, absence, alternative |
| Ellipsis | Trailing, pause, omission |
| Exclamation | Frequency, contexts |
| Rhetorical questions | Frequency, function |
| Category | Preferred | Avoided | Signature Examples |
|---|---|---|---|
| Technical terms | |||
| Colloquialisms | |||
| Intensifiers | very, extremely, quite... | ||
| Hedging | perhaps, might, seems... | ||
| Abstract/concrete |
List phrases/patterns appearing 3+ times:
| Source Domain | Target Domain | Example | Frequency |
|---|---|---|---|
| (war, journey, building...) | (ideas, processes...) |
Rate 1-5 for prevalence:
| Low | Medium | High |
|---|---|---|
| (understated) | (balanced) | (expressive) |
| Style | When Used | Markers |
|---|---|---|
| Direct | "This is wrong because..." | |
| Diplomatic | "One consideration might be..." | |
| Humorous | "Well, that's one way to..." | |
| Analytical | "The issue breaks down to..." |
The writer positions as:
In 2-3 sentences, capture the essence:
A piece captures this voice when: 1. 2. 3.
Definitely NOT this voice when: 1. 2. 3.
Before finalizing the voice guide:
[Single paragraph essence]
When writing has gone generic, add: 1. 2. 3.
Once the voice guide is complete, include relevant sections in the prompt to guide generation toward authentic voice reproduction.
Writers can use this framework to understand their own voice, identify what makes their writing distinctive, and consciously apply those patterns.
Use the voice guide as a checklist when editing to ensure consistency and authenticity.
Pattern: Cataloging every linguistic feature without understanding what makes the voice feel distinctive. Why it fails: A perfect inventory of word frequencies and sentence lengths can produce writing that's technically accurate but feels like a parody. Voice is gestalt, not components. Fix: Start from "what makes this voice feel like this?" Work backward to mechanics. The inventory serves understanding; understanding doesn't emerge from inventory alone.
Pattern: Analyzing voice from one type of writing, then applying it to all contexts. Why it fails: Writers shift voice across contexts. Technical writing voice differs from casual email voice. Capturing one context and forcing it everywhere creates uncanny artifacts. Fix: Sample across contexts. Map how voice shifts. Include context-switching rules in the voice guide. Understand which elements are constant vs. context-dependent.
Pattern: If they use em-dashes 8% of the time, the voice guide prescribes 8% em-dash usage. Why it fails: Frequency is a statistical average, not a style rule. Forced frequency creates awkward placement. Natural writers don't count punctuation. Fix: Understand when they use em-dashes, not how often. "Uses em-dashes for dramatic interjections, rarely for lists" is actionable. "8% em-dashes" is not.
Pattern: Voice-guided writing that feels like someone doing an impression—technically accurate but overperformed. Why it fails: Distinctive features become tics when isolated. Real voice balances distinctive and neutral. Guides that catalog only distinctive features produce caricature. Fix: Include neutral baseline alongside distinctive features. Most sentences should sound natural, with distinctive features emerging at appropriate moments, not constantly.
Pattern: Treating the voice guide as permanent, not updating as the writer evolves. Why it fails: Writers change. A voice guide from 2020 may not fit 2025 writing. Using outdated guides produces writing that feels like an old version of the person. Fix: Note the capture date. Plan periodic updates. Include the writer's own reflections on how their voice has evolved. Treat the guide as living documentation.
| Skill | What it provides |
|---|---|
| (writing samples) | Raw material for analysis |
| prose-style | Sentence-level craft framework for analysis |
| Skill | What this provides |
|---|---|
| prose-style | Voice-specific sentence construction guidance |
| dialogue | Voice patterns for character speech |
| (AI generation) | Voice guides for consistent AI-assisted writing |
| Skill | Relationship |
|---|---|
| prose-style | Voice-analysis captures what; prose-style provides how. Use voice-analysis first to understand the target, then prose-style to achieve it |
| dialogue | Voice-analysis for authorial voice; dialogue skill for character voices within fiction |
Make data-driven prioritization decisions faster
Draft PRDs, status updates, and stakeholder presentations
Example
Create executive summary of Q3 roadmap, monthly progress report, feature launch announcement
Save 3-5 hours/week on communication overhead
Prerequisites
Time Estimate
30-60 minutes to see productivity improvements
Steps
Common Pitfalls
✓ Do
✗ Don't
💡 Pro Tips
✓ Use when
Use for user story writing, competitive research, roadmap prioritization, stakeholder communication, and PRD drafting. Best for reducing repetitive documentation and research work.
✗ Avoid when
Avoid for strategic product vision (requires deep customer empathy), pricing decisions (needs market and financial expertise), or when face-to-face customer discovery is more valuable than speed.
jwynia/agent-skills
mattpocock/skills
parcadei/continuous-claude-v3
cursor/plugins
ailabs-393/ai-labs-claude-skills
pproenca/dot-skills
Useful defaults in voice-analysis — fewer surprises than typical one-off scripts, and it plays nicely with `npx skills` flows.
voice-analysis is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.
I recommend voice-analysis for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.
Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: voice-analysis is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.
We added voice-analysis from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.
Keeps context tight: voice-analysis is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.
I recommend voice-analysis for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.
voice-analysis is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.
voice-analysis reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.
voice-analysis is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.
showing 1-10 of 30