Writing clarity is a choice—let AI enforce it

Welcome to Prompt, Tinker, Innovate. This is my hands-on AI playground for people who care about thinking clearly, working faster, and writing with authority. Each edition delivers one focused experiment that turns AI from a convenience into a professional advantage.

This week’s experiment tackles a quiet problem with visible consequences. Most writing fails because clarity slips, not because ideas fall short. AI can fix that, but only if you stop asking it for suggestions and start using it as an enforcement tool.

This week’s playground: The writing clarity filter

Strong writing follows rules. It always has. The problem starts when people use AI as a first-draft machine and skip those rules entirely. The result looks clean but reads soft, vague, and forgettable.

Three patterns show up every time.

• Passive voice hides ownership and intent.

• Bloated lists scatter attention instead of focusing it.

• Uneven paragraphs signal loose thinking before the reader finishes the page.

None of this comes from AI itself. It comes from letting standards slide.

Clarity works differently. It comes from structure, restraint, and repetition of proven forms. When you treat AI as a structural filter, your writing gains weight instead of fluff.

Why clarity matters more than you think

Readers decide whether to trust your thinking in seconds. They do not wait for your conclusion. They scan for confidence, rhythm, and control. When those signals disappear, authority disappears with them.

This was ingrained in us when I worked as a Forrester analyst. Our reports cost real money, and our audience lived on tight calendars. If an executive could not skim a page and feel grounded in the analysis, we failed the assignment.

The standard stayed simple. Write so anyone can grasp the point quickly. Structure so no one gets lost. Edit so nothing distracts from the decision at hand. Today, you can meet that standard without an editor by applying the rule of three and the three Cs with discipline.

Your AI experiment: Enforce the rules

👉 Time to tinker: Copy the prompt below into ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini. Then paste in something real—an email, LinkedIn post, or internal update.

📝 Prompt: You are an expert writer. Your work is conversational, concise, and constructive. You prioritize clarity over cleverness and structure over volume.

Core writing philosophy (The 3 Cs)

1. Contextualize: Explain why the reader should care immediately. Lead with relevance.

2. Convince: Advance one clear idea using concrete reasoning, examples, or frameworks.

3. Connect: End with a prescriptive next step or recommendation.

Strict style constraints (The “Never” list)

• NEVER use passive voice.

• NEVER use lists of two—either collapse the list or add a third point.

• NEVER write run-on sentences. Be brief.

• NEVER use “Title Case” for headings. Use “Sentence case” only.

• NEVER allow uneven paragraphs. Keep them roughly equal in length.

Formatting and structure rules

• The rule of 3: Group ideas, arguments, and lists in threes.

• Story arc: Use Setup → Confrontation → Resolution for thought leadership, or Problem → Solution → Benefits for tactical writing.

• Bullets: Match length and structure, avoid repeating the same subject, and use numbers only when order matters.

Grammar and mechanics

• Always use the Oxford comma.

• Spell out one through nine; use numerals for 10+.

• Assume the reader has a 30-second attention span.

Output requirement: End with one clear call to action or recommendation.

Here is my content: [paste or upload content]”

An AI teammate version of this prompt is in Aime so that you can add this specialist expert to your team to ensure your writing is always clear and authoritative.

What is Aime? Aime is a free community library for finding, sharing, and building reusable AI teammates. Learn more here.

💡 Pro tip: Audit before you rewrite

To make your writing even sharper, ask the AI for a pre-rewrite audit. Before it changes a word, ask it: "Identify the three weakest sentences in my draft and explain why they violate the strict style constraints or the core writing philosophy defined above.” Understanding the "why" helps you stop making the same mistakes in your future first drafts.

What did you discover?

If this experiment works, two things will feel uncomfortable: watching unnecessary words disappear and realizing how often you skipped structure before. That discomfort is useful—it means the rules are doing their job.

Take one piece of writing you care about and run it through these rules. Did the "rule of 3" make your argument feel more stable? Did the active voice change the energy of your pitch?

Until next time—keep tinkering, keep prompting, keep innovating.

📩 Not subscribed yet? Hit the button at the top. You won’t want to miss what’s next.