Stats
Actions
Tags
Writes structured op-eds from a position, evidence, and audience. Useful for journalists and contributors who need to shape arguments into publishable form.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/autopunk-media-skills:opinion-piece-writerThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Constructs a structured, argumentatively coherent opinion article or op-ed from a journalist's or contributor's position, evidence, and intended audience.
Constructs a structured, argumentatively coherent opinion article or op-ed from a journalist's or contributor's position, evidence, and intended audience.
Required:
Optional:
Core argument: City governments should ban single-use plastics in food service — not phase them out over five years, but ban them outright within 12 months. The delays cost more than the transition. Evidence:
At a council meeting last spring, a catering supplier testified that switching to compostable packaging would put his business under. He was given another two years. Eighteen months later, having made the switch, his costs were lower than projected and he was supplying three new clients who prioritised sustainability. He told a follow-up inquiry he wished he had been pushed sooner.
That story — replicated in variation across cities that have implemented hard bans on single-use plastics in food service — points to a policy failure hiding in plain sight. The phased approach that most local governments default to is not, as its advocates claim, the pragmatic option. It is the expensive one.
The evidence is consistent. Cities that enacted 12-month outright bans on single-use food-service plastics reached 89% hospitality sector compliance within six months, with no measurable spike in business closures attributable to the transition. The phased approach — the choice of most councils — has averaged 4.2 years to reach equivalent compliance. During that extended runway, plastic waste volumes fell by less than 8%. The phase was not a bridge to change. It was a delay of it.
The cost argument deserves direct attention, because it is the one most commonly used to justify gradualism. Post-implementation audits across multiple jurisdictions have found that transition cost estimates — the figures circulated during debate to make outright bans appear prohibitive — are overestimated by 30 to 40 percent. Suppliers adapt faster than projected. Economies of scale in alternative packaging develop more quickly once demand is mandated rather than incentivised. The fiscal case for delay is built on numbers that have not survived contact with reality.
The small business objection is legitimate in principle, even if the data do not support it in practice. Twelve months is not a trivial adjustment window for an independent restaurateur. But the appropriate response is targeted transition support — subsidised supplier access, streamlined procurement for compliant packaging, a waiver process for demonstrable hardship — not an extension that postpones accountability for the majority to accommodate the difficult cases of a minority.
Local authorities have more direct power over food-service plastics than over most environmental problems. The question is not whether to act but how fast. The evidence on the how-fast question now points in one direction. A 12-month ban with properly resourced transition support produces better environmental outcomes, equal or lower business disruption, and no measurable cost premium over the extended timelines that have become the path of least political resistance.
The phase is not a plan. It is a postponement. Councils that have moved decisively have not regretted it. Those still deliberating have the data. The next step is the decision.
npx claudepluginhub ur-grue/autopunk-media-skills --plugin autopunk-media-skillsWrites bylined opinion articles for placement in newspapers or trade publications, transforming briefings and key messages into authentic thought-leadership pieces.
Generates opinion pieces (op-eds) following style guidelines, reviewing prior publications to avoid repetition, targeting ~3500 characters with bash script validation. Use for newspaper articles or long-form opinions.
Surfaces the warrant, audits evidence, and addresses counterarguments in persuasive writing. Use when an argument has holes or evidence doesn't connect to the claim.