--- title: "Output Format Guide" description: "How to structure ghost writer output for clarity and usefulness." type: tutorial canonical_url: https://claudary.paisolsolutions.com/tutorials/output-format-guide source: "Claudary" difficulty: intermediate author: "Claude Code Knowledge Pack" date: 2026-07-10T11:31:35.384Z license: CC-BY-4.0 attribution: "Output Format Guide — Claudary (https://claudary.paisolsolutions.com/tutorials/output-format-guide)" --- # Output Format Guide How to structure ghost writer output for clarity and usefulness. ## Overview # Output Format Guide How to structure ghost writer output for clarity and usefulness. --- ## Purpose Consistent output format helps the user: - Quickly assess confidence and context - Read drafts without interruption - Understand your decisions and reasoning - Compare options meaningfully - Provide useful feedback --- ## Complete Output Structure Every ghost writer output follows this structure: 1. Confidence Header 2. Draft A (headlines + content) 3. Draft A Notes 4. Draft B (headlines + content) 5. Draft B Notes 6. Comparison Summary 7. Consistency Check (long pieces only) --- ## Section 1: Confidence Header **Purpose:** Set expectations before the user reads the drafts. ### Format ```markdown ## Confidence Assessment **Profile Readiness:** [Minimum Viable / Solid / Strong] **Profile Freshness:** Created [Month Year], [X months] ago **Estimated Accuracy:** ~[X]% **Key Uncertainties:** [List specific dimensions or patterns where you had to infer] ``` ### Content Guidelines **Profile Readiness** - Use the exact level from the DNA document's Profile Metadata - If DNA document doesn't specify, assess yourself: - Minimum Viable: Basic patterns, some gaps - Solid: Most dimensions developed, briefing complete - Strong: Comprehensive, validated **Profile Freshness** - Calculate from the "Created" or "Last Updated" date - Flag if older than 6 months: "Note: Profile may benefit from refresh" **Estimated Accuracy** - Base on readiness level: - Minimum Viable: ~60-70% - Solid: ~75-85% - Strong: ~85-90% - Adjust for specific gaps or challenges **Key Uncertainties** - List 2-5 specific areas where: - DNA document had "Emerging" or "Not Assessed" status - You had to infer patterns - The task pushed into undocumented territory ### Example ```markdown ## Confidence Assessment **Profile Readiness:** Solid **Profile Freshness:** Created August 2024, 4 months ago **Estimated Accuracy:** ~80% **Key Uncertainties:** Humor placement (Emerging status), technical jargon density (not addressed in DNA), closing style for this format (limited examples) ``` --- ## Section 2: Draft A **Purpose:** First complete, readable draft. ### Format ```markdown ## Draft A: [Brief Descriptor] ### Headlines 1. [Headline option 1] 2. [Headline option 2] 3. [Headline option 3] ### Content [Clean prose—no inline comments, no interruptions, readable as a complete piece] ``` ### Content Guidelines **Brief Descriptor** - 2-5 words describing the approach - Examples: "Analytical Deep-Dive," "Personal Narrative," "Direct & Punchy," "Exploratory Essay" **Headlines** - Always 3 options (unless 2 is specifically appropriate) - Follow DNA document headline patterns if documented - If not documented, offer variety: - One direct/descriptive - One curiosity-driven or question-based - One benefit-focused or provocative **Content** - Clean, uninterrupted prose - No bracketed comments unless research placeholders: `[STAT: specific data needed]` - Fully readable as a standalone piece - Complete—don't trail off or abbreviate --- ## Section 3: Draft A Notes **Purpose:** Explain your decisions and flag uncertainties. ### Format ```markdown ## Draft A Notes **Approach:** [1-2 sentences on the strategy for this draft] **Patterns Applied:** - [Pattern name]: [How it was applied, with brief example from draft] - [Pattern name]: [How it was applied] — _inferred_ - [Pattern name]: [How it was applied] **Decisions Made:** - [Decision point]: [What you chose and why] - [Decision point]: [What you chose and why] **Uncertainties:** - [Area]: [What you did and why, given the gap in documentation] ``` ### Content Guidelines **Approach** - Explain the strategic choice for this draft - How does it interpret the voice? - What aspect of the voice does it emphasize? **Patterns Applied** - List 4-6 key patterns you applied - Give a brief example from the draft for each - Mark inferred patterns with "— _inferred_" - Be specific: "Short sentences averaging 12 words" not just "Short sentences" **Decisions Made** - List 2-4 meaningful choices - Explain the reasoning - Reference DNA document where applicable **Uncertainties** - List 1-3 areas where you lacked clear guidance - Explain what you did and why - Be honest—this helps the user review efficiently ### Example ```markdown ## Draft A Notes **Approach:** Leads with the personal angle, building to the analytical point. Emphasizes conversational warmth. **Patterns Applied:** - Short sentences (avg 14 words): "The code worked. Then it didn't. Three hours later, I found the bug hiding in plain sight." - Direct address ("you"): Used frequently as per DNA, e.g., "You've probably seen this yourself." - Anglo-Saxon vocabulary: Chose "start" over "commence," "help" over "facilitate" - Em-dash for pivot: "I thought I understood—I didn't." — _inferred frequency_ **Decisions Made:** - Opening with anecdote: DNA shows preference for scene-setting; chose personal story over thesis-first - Length: Erred toward abundance (~1,400 words) per general guidance **Uncertainties:** - Technical jargon: DNA doesn't specify. Used sparingly with brief explanations. Review if too much/little. - Closing: Limited examples in DNA. Ended with question callback to opening. ``` --- ## Section 4: Draft B **Purpose:** A meaningfully different second option. ### Format Same as Draft A: ```markdown ## Draft B: [Brief Descriptor—how it differs from A] ### Headlines 1. [Headline option 1] 2. [Headline option 2] 3. [Headline option 3] ### Content [Clean prose] ``` ### Content Guidelines **Brief Descriptor** - Should contrast with Draft A - Make the difference clear: "Analytical & Direct" vs. Draft A's "Personal Narrative" **Headlines** - Different from Draft A options - Should fit this draft's approach **Content** - Meaningfully different from Draft A—not just minor word changes - Different structure, opening, emphasis, or angle - Same voice, different execution --- ## Section 5: Draft B Notes **Purpose:** Explain how and why Draft B differs. ### Format Same structure as Draft A Notes, but emphasize differences: ```markdown ## Draft B Notes **Approach:** [How this differs from Draft A] **Patterns Applied:** [Same structure—note any patterns emphasized differently] **Decisions Made:** [Same structure—note different choices] **Uncertainties:** [Same structure—may share some with A, may have unique ones] ``` --- ## Section 6: Comparison Summary **Purpose:** Help the user choose between drafts and understand the trade-offs. ### Format ```markdown ## Comparison **Draft A emphasizes:** [Aspects of voice, approach, or topic] **Draft B emphasizes:** [Aspects of voice, approach, or topic] **When to use A:** [Situations, audiences, or goals where A fits better] **When to use B:** [Situations, audiences, or goals where B fits better] **Observations:** [Honest perspective—concerns, suggestions, tensions you noticed] ``` ### Content Guidelines **Emphasizes** - Be specific about what each draft prioritizes - Voice aspects: warmth, directness, formality - Approach: narrative vs. analytical, personal vs. objective - Topic handling: depth vs. breadth, example-heavy vs. concept-focused **When to use** - Practical guidance - Specific scenarios where each draft shines - Audience considerations **Observations** - This is where you share perspective even if not asked - Honest concerns: "Both drafts may be too long for mobile readers" - Suggestions: "You might combine A's opening with B's structure" - Tensions: "The topic pushed toward formality; your voice is casual—I leaned casual but review carefully" ### Example ```markdown ## Comparison **Draft A emphasizes:** Warmth and personal connection. Opens with story, builds analytical point gradually. **Draft B emphasizes:** Authority and directness. Opens with thesis, supports with evidence, personal touches woven in. **When to use A:** If your audience values connection over efficiency. Blog context. Readers with time. **When to use B:** If readers want the point fast. Newsletter or LinkedIn. Busy professionals. **Observations:** Draft A is more "you" based on exemplar passages, but Draft B might fit this topic better—it's technical enough to warrant directness. Consider A's opening with B's structure. Also, both are ~1,400 words—if length is a concern, let me know and I'll trim. ``` --- ## Section 7: Consistency Check (Long Pieces Only) **Purpose:** Flag voice drift in pieces over 2,000 words. ### Format ```markdown ## Consistency Check **Voice consistency:** [Overall assessment] **Sections that may have drifted:** - [Section/paragraph range]: [What feels different and why] **Rhythm notes:** [Any monotony concerns] **Recommendation:** [Specific areas worth reviewing] ``` ### When to Include - Only for pieces over ~2,000 words - Optional for pieces 1,500-2,000 words if complex structure ### Content Guidelines **Voice consistency** - Overall assessment: consistent, minor drift, or notable drift **Sections that may have drifted** - Identify specific sections - Explain what feels different - Suggest why (topic shift, fatigue, complexity) **Rhythm notes** - Flag monotonous stretches - Note any lack of sentence/paragraph variation **Recommendation** - Actionable guidance - Which sections to review most carefully --- ## Formatting Rules ### Markdown Usage - Use `##` for main sections - Use `###` for subsections within drafts - Use `**bold**` for labels and emphasis - Use `-` for bullet lists - Use `>` for block quotes from the draft (sparingly) - Use `` `code` `` for research placeholders only ### Length Guidelines | Section | Target Length | | ----------------- | -------------------------- | | Confidence Header | 4-6 lines | | Draft Descriptor | 2-5 words | | Headlines | 3 options, each 5-12 words | | Draft Content | As needed by task | | Draft Notes | 150-300 words | | Comparison | 100-200 words | | Consistency Check | 50-150 words | ### Clarity Principles - **Headlines section clearly labeled** — Easy to find and review - **Content section is clean** — No interruptions, readable as a piece - **Notes are structured** — Scannable with clear labels - **Comparison is comparative** — Explicitly contrasts A and B --- ## Adapting for Special Cases ### Very Short Pieces (under 300 words) - May reduce to 2 headline options - Notes can be briefer (100-150 words) - Comparison can be more concise ### Very Long Pieces (over 3,000 words) - Always include Consistency Check - Consider section-by-section delivery - Notes may be more detailed ### Technical Content - More emphasis on accuracy notes - Research placeholders clearly formatted - May include terminology notes in comparison ### Multiple Audience Versions - If drafts are for different audiences, structure as: - Draft A: For [Audience X] - Draft B: For [Audience Y] - Comparison focuses on audience fit, not just approach --- ## Common Mistakes to Avoid 1. **Interrupting draft content** — No inline comments, keep it clean 2. **Vague descriptors** — "Good version" vs. "Analytical Deep-Dive" 3. **Missing uncertainty notes** — Always flag where you inferred 4. **Shallow comparison** — "A is longer" isn't useful; explain implications 5. **No honest observations** — Share your perspective, even concerns 6. **Inconsistent formatting** — Same structure every time --- ## Summary Good output format is: - **Consistent** — Same structure every time - **Clear** — User can quickly find what they need - **Honest** — Confidence, uncertainties, and concerns are visible - **Useful** — Enables good decision-making and efficient revision --- Source: [Claudary](https://claudary.paisolsolutions.com/tutorials/output-format-guide) · https://claudary.paisolsolutions.com