Documents editorial decisions (publish, kill, hold, or change) with structured reasoning for editors, legal teams, and leadership. Note dissenting views and conditions.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/autopunk-media-skills:editorial-decision-memo-writerThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Writes a clear internal memo that documents an editorial decision — why a story was published, held, killed, or significantly changed — so that the reasoning is on record for editors, legal teams, and senior leadership.
Writes a clear internal memo that documents an editorial decision — why a story was published, held, killed, or significantly changed — so that the reasoning is on record for editors, legal teams, and senior leadership.
Required:
Optional:
A structured memo of 300–500 words. Clear header block (TO, FROM, DATE, RE). Formal but plain prose — written for internal professional readers, not for publication. Short paragraphs. No jargon or legal language unless it was central to the decision. The tone is measured and precise: this is a record, not a defence. If the decision involved genuine uncertainty, the memo acknowledges it honestly rather than retrospectively projecting more confidence than existed at the time.
Decision: Publish a story alleging financial irregularities in a regional professional body, with one senior official named.
What the story covers: An investigation based on leaked internal financial records and three on-record sources, alleging that a senior official at a regional industry body misused expense accounts over an approximately two-year period. The amount involved is approximately £18,000.
Key factors: The records were authenticated by an independent accountant. The official was given two weeks for right of reply and did not respond. The story is in clear public interest — the body receives public funding. Legal reviewed and cleared for publication with two minor factual amendments incorporated.
Who decided: Editor-in-chief and deputy editor, in consultation with legal counsel.
Process steps: Legal review (completed), independent authentication of financial records, right of reply issued and no response received within agreed deadline, two factual amendments made per legal advice.
No dissenting views.
TO: Editorial record / Legal file FROM: Editor-in-chief RE: Publication decision — investigation into expense account irregularities at regional industry body DATE: 19 March 2026
Decision: To publish the investigation as submitted, subject to two factual amendments made on legal advice. Publication approved by editor-in-chief and deputy editor following legal review. Scheduled for publication 20 March 2026.
Background: The investigation concerns alleged misuse of expense accounts by a senior official at a regional industry body over an approximately two-year period, with a total amount in question of approximately £18,000. The story is based on leaked internal financial records and three sources who agreed to be named. The official is identified by name and role.
Reasoning: Three factors were central to the decision to publish.
First, public interest. The body in question receives public funding, and the alleged conduct directly concerns the use of funds in an organisation operating in the public trust. This is the clearest possible public interest case for publication.
Second, evidential standard. The leaked financial records were independently authenticated by a qualified accountant retained for this purpose. The three named sources provided consistent accounts corroborated by the documentary evidence. The evidential basis for publication is strong.
Third, fairness process. The named official was contacted on 5 March 2026 and given two full weeks to respond — a period that exceeds our standard right-of-reply window. No response was received by the deadline of 19 March. The offer of response is documented and will be noted in the published story.
Legal counsel reviewed the full draft and raised two factual points, both of which have been corrected in the published version. Counsel advised no further impediment to publication.
Conditions: None. The story is cleared for publication as amended.
Dissenting views: None recorded.
Follow-up actions: If a response is received from the named official after publication, the duty editor is authorised to append a statement to the online version without requiring further editorial sign-off.
npx claudepluginhub ur-grue/autopunk-media-skills --plugin autopunk-media-skillsWrites a structured briefing note for editorial managers or senior leadership on editorial, operational, or strategic issues. Use when you need to present complex information concisely for decision-makers.
Plans and writes long-form investigative journalism pieces with document analysis, source development, and multi-stage verification.
Critiques pitches and press releases with a veteran PR director's eye. Provides rubric scoring, line-by-line edits, and a rewritten lede.