This repository is worked from a single account, although the robot-council organization owns it, and the same is true of its sibling. Every pull request, issue, and comment posts under that one account: the same account authors the change, files the ticket, reviews the branch, and posts the...
php artisan boost:add-skill robot-council/cliSave this content to: .cursor/rules/impersonal-voice-in-github-artifacts.md
# Rule — write GitHub artifacts in an impersonal voice
This repository is worked from a **single account**, although the `robot-council` organization owns it, and the same is true of its sibling. Every pull request, issue, and comment posts under that one account: the same account authors the change, files the ticket, reviews the branch, and posts the validation comment. So **first person reads as that person narrating their own work, and second person reads as them addressing themselves** — to anyone who opens the tracker. Neither is what the sentence means.
Write the artifact as a statement about runs, files, and tickets. There is no narrator in it.
## Why this is a standing order
The defect was found in `UAMS-Web/wordpress-importer` on 2026-08-24, where a sweep of validation comments under a single posting account found 72 of 82 needing a rewrite. It then sharpened, and the sharpening is the half worth keeping: **deleting the pronoun is not enough — the vouching stance has to go with it.** "All three defects are confirmed from use" contains no pronoun and still reads as the author confirming their own PR. A rule that stops at `I`/`you` catches the easy half and leaves the sentence that actually misleads.
## How to apply
1. **Scope: PR bodies, issue bodies, and PR/issue comments.** Bodies have skills — [`writing-pull-requests`](../skills/writing-pull-requests/SKILL.md) and [`writing-issues`](../skills/writing-issues/SKILL.md). Comments are the largest class by volume and no skill covers them, which is why this is a rule.
2. **No `I`, `my`, `you`, or `your` — state the finding as a fact about a run or an artifact.**
| Instead of | Write |
| --- | --- |
| "I verified X" | "Verified: X" |
| "my #N run" | "the #N validation run" |
| "you found the reason I did not" | "the reason recorded here is stronger than the one raised on #N" |
The replacement is almost always shorter, because the pronoun carried no information.
3. **Remove the confirming narrator, not just the pronoun.** If a sentence implies a party who checked, corroborated, agreed, or was persuaded, it is wrong. Replace the vouch with the evidence it stood in for: "All three are confirmed from use" becomes "Each has a matching failure on record: …"; "Verified independently" becomes "Verified: #N open, #M closed". **Praise is the same defect** — "good catch", "the sharpest sentence in the PR" read as self-congratulation under one account and tell a reader nothing. State what the sentence establishes instead.
4. **Impersonal does not mean vague.** Keep every number, path, ticket reference, command, and error string. "Verified: X" is impersonal; "this was checked" removes the source along with the pronoun and is worse than what it replaced. If deleting the narrator leaves nothing behind, the sentence had no content — cut it or go find the evidence.
5. **Two carve-outs, and they are real.**
- **Repo prose deliberately addresses a reader as "you".** `.claude/**` and [`README.md`](../../README.md) are instructions to whoever reads them next, and second person is correct there. A sweep must not strip it; this file does it in the sentence you are reading.
- **Verbatim quotations keep their original wording**, including "you". A quote is evidence; altering it to satisfy the rule is a worse defect than the quote.
Commit messages already comply by construction — an imperative subject and a `-` bullet body per [`writing-commits`](../skills/writing-commits/SKILL.md). Keep it that way: a bullet that starts "I moved…" is the same defect arriving through a different door.
## The DRY line
This file is the standing statement on **voice in GitHub artifacts**. What goes *in* a body belongs to [`writing-pull-requests`](../skills/writing-pull-requests/SKILL.md) and [`writing-issues`](../skills/writing-issues/SKILL.md), and commit mechanics to [`writing-commits`](../skills/writing-commits/SKILL.md); each points here rather than restating this. It composes with [`no-emoji-in-durable-records`](no-emoji-in-durable-records.md), which governs a different leak in the same sentences, and with [`adversarial-review`](adversarial-review.md), whose findings are exactly the sentences most tempted into a vouching stance.This repository is worked from a single account, although the robot-council organization owns it, and the same is true of its sibling. Every pull request, issue, and comment posts under that one account: the same account authors the change, files the ticket, reviews the branch, and posts the validation comment. So first person reads as that person narrating their own work, and second person reads as them addressing themselves — to anyone who opens the tracker. Neither is what the sentence means.
Write the artifact as a statement about runs, files, and tickets. There is no narrator in it.
The defect was found in UAMS-Web/wordpress-importer on 2026-08-24, where a sweep of validation comments under a single posting account found 72 of 82 needing a rewrite. It then sharpened, and the sharpening is the half worth keeping: deleting the pronoun is not enough — the vouching stance has to go with it. "All three defects are confirmed from use" contains no pronoun and still reads as the author confirming their own PR. A rule that stops at I/you catches the easy half and leaves the sentence that actually misleads.
Scope: PR bodies, issue bodies, and PR/issue comments. Bodies have skills — writing-pull-requests and writing-issues. Comments are the largest class by volume and no skill covers them, which is why this is a rule.
No I, my, you, or your — state the finding as a fact about a run or an artifact.
| Instead of | Write |
|---|---|
| "I verified X" | "Verified: X" |
| "my #N run" | "the #N validation run" |
| "you found the reason I did not" | "the reason recorded here is stronger than the one raised on #N" |
The replacement is almost always shorter, because the pronoun carried no information.
Remove the confirming narrator, not just the pronoun. If a sentence implies a party who checked, corroborated, agreed, or was persuaded, it is wrong. Replace the vouch with the evidence it stood in for: "All three are confirmed from use" becomes "Each has a matching failure on record: …"; "Verified independently" becomes "Verified: #N open, #M closed". Praise is the same defect — "good catch", "the sharpest sentence in the PR" read as self-congratulation under one account and tell a reader nothing. State what the sentence establishes instead.
Impersonal does not mean vague. Keep every number, path, ticket reference, command, and error string. "Verified: X" is impersonal; "this was checked" removes the source along with the pronoun and is worse than what it replaced. If deleting the narrator leaves nothing behind, the sentence had no content — cut it or go find the evidence.
Two carve-outs, and they are real.
.claude/** and README.md are instructions to whoever reads them next, and second person is correct there. A sweep must not strip it; this file does it in the sentence you are reading.Commit messages already comply by construction — an imperative subject and a - bullet body per writing-commits. Keep it that way: a bullet that starts "I moved…" is the same defect arriving through a different door.
This file is the standing statement on voice in GitHub artifacts. What goes in a body belongs to writing-pull-requests and writing-issues, and commit mechanics to writing-commits; each points here rather than restating this. It composes with no-emoji-in-durable-records, which governs a different leak in the same sentences, and with adversarial-review, whose findings are exactly the sentences most tempted into a vouching stance.
How can I help you explore Laravel packages today?