joshbecker.md
A Claude Skill

Collaborative
Editor

Edits with you, not for you — sharpening your writing without flattening your voice.


A skill for Claude Code & Cowork  ·  built by joshbecker.md

The problem

Tired of AI edits that
sound like everyone else?

You crafted bold, human ideas — then a chatbot handed them back as smooth, internet-ready slop. Your long winding sentences, your stacked parentheticals, your blunt words: quietly sanded off. You wrote it, but now you wonder — “does this read like AI?”

Your ideas are bold and human. Your writing should be too.

What it is

A real editor — after
the ideas are down.

You bring the thinking. Collaborative Editor shows up like a sharp human editor for the next part: it reads what you wrote, names what’s working, flags the weak spots, and hands you concrete choices — turn by turn. It never dumps a finished rewrite. You stay the author on every line; it just helps your voice land harder.

›Edits with you, not for you ›Keeps your human voice ›Built so it won’t read like AI

Is it for you?

Built for your own writing —
not for standardizing it.

Reach for it when…

  • You’re workshopping an essay, post, or argument you wrote
  • You want it to keep sounding like you
  • You’d rather be handed options than a rewrite
  • You like editing in passes, back and forth

Skip it when…

  • It’s a clinical note, letter, or report meant to be standardized
  • You want a one-shot “fix the grammar and send it back”
  • You just want it “made punchier” and delivered
  • You want the final version, no conversation

How it works

Four passes, in order.

1

Structure

Orient on reader, goal & scope — then fix the argument and the shape.

2

Grammar

A tight checklist of real errors: typos, agreement, words used wrong.

3

Wording

Sharpen the flat spots — options to pick from, never imposed.

4

Coherence

One last whole-piece read to make sure nothing came loose.

Settle the big things first — polish a sentence too early and you may polish something that gets cut.

Pass 1 · Structure

Orient first — then interrogate
the argument.

R

Reader, goal & scope

Who is this for, where does it live, and is it even complete? Every later decision depends on these — and it notices when a draft is really just part one of something larger.

E

Reads structure like an editor

Finds your real opening (often two paragraphs in), checks the stakes — does the reader know why this matters? — and pushes abstract claims toward the concrete thing underneath.

S

Options, not verdicts

Where the shape is muddy it offers two genuine directions — “lead with the contrast” vs. “invert it and open with the conclusion” — and lets you choose.

( )

Your parentheticals stay

It treats your asides as voice, not clutter — asking before pulling one out, never deleting it on you.

Passes 2 & 3 · Grammar & Wording

Correct what’s wrong.
Sharpen what’s flat.

  • Typos & agreement, flagged to confirm
  • Words used incorrectly — it caught “moral hazard” where the writer meant “moral injury”
  • Ambiguous “this” with no clear referent
  • Strict em-dash discipline; it won’t machine-tool your punctuation
  • 2–3 real rewrites per flat spot, plus “leave it alone”
  • Strong verbs over flab — “is reflective of” → “reflects”
  • Dead clichés flagged; old-to-new flow fixes the “clunky, can’t say why”
  • Repetition checked, not assumed — sometimes it’s a deliberate drumbeat

What a choice looks like

Every flag is an offer — clickable,
never imposed.

Flagged: “Now, any reasonable person would never tolerate this from a mechanic.” The hinge of the piece, but a touch limp.

B“…you would never stand for this from a mechanic.”Recommended
A“Now — no one would tolerate this from a mechanic.”
CLeave it as-is.
You“Now, you would never tolerate this from a mechanic.”
For that hour — the one that actually found the problem — he is paid $100 by the narrow networknarrow-network insurance. Even worse, byBy morning the tire is flat again.

 added     removed   — the same edits, shown as a redline.

Pass 4 · Coherence sweep

The read you can only do
once the parts are done.

Editing sentence by sentence can quietly damage the whole even as it improves the parts. So the final pass reads for the seams, not the sentences:

↺

Structure still intact?

A reordering that left an “as I said above” pointing at nothing.

⚑

Any idea left hanging?

A claim set up but never paid off, a promise the piece no longer keeps.

≈

New redundancy or contradiction?

Two tightened passages that now quietly disagree.

The deliverable

Your marked-up final —
in any format you choose.

Live edits

Word (.docx) — tracked changes

Real insertions & deletions you Accept or Reject.

Live edits

Apple Pages & Google Docs

The same .docx imports as change-tracking / Suggestions.

Visual

PDF redline

Insertions underlined, deletions struck — for print & sharing.

Visual

HTML redline

Renders in any browser, no app required.

The patient is the occasionwhole point of the transaction, not a party to it.

Always paired with a clean copy — the redline is for review, the clean version is what you publish.

Get started

Try it on your next draft.

Claude Code

Clone the repo, then drop the skill into your skills folder:

cp -R collaborative-editor ~/.claude/skills/

Claude Cowork

Download the package, add it via Settings → Capabilities:

collaborative-editor.skill

Then just ask — “Be my collaborative editor on this draft.”

MIT-licensed  ·  joshbecker.md  ·  sharpen the writing, keep the voice.

joshbecker.md  ·  GitHub 1 / 11