Add Harry writing style skill

harry-writing-style-skill/EXAMPLES/casual-opinion/bad.md

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+# Bad Examples: casual-opinion
+
+1. > I think the previous primary colour had merit, but perhaps it should be applied more selectively across the interface.
+
+   Fails because it sounds edited. "The old primary colour was fine" is the voice.
+
+2. > This pull request appears to be low risk because the changes are additive and reversible.
+
+   Fails because it removes the thinking-out-loud rhythm.
+
+3. > The current visual direction is promising, although some spacing refinements would improve the presentation.
+
+   Fails because it sands off "it's a bit rough".
+
+4. > Why not use the Timescale container rather than this unconventional setup?
+
+   Fails because "this weird shit" carries the actual reaction.
+
+5. > The stack tags may be adding unnecessary visual noise to the index page.
+
+   Fails because "It's just cluttering up the ui" is more direct.
+
+6. > The lighting treatment is not visually successful.
+
+   Fails because it is too art-director polished for "they don't look good at all".
+
+7. > These checks may not be giving us the level of confidence we need.
+
+   Fails because the original judgement is sharper: "these checks seem really shitty".
+
+8. > Please avoid restating my point and instead provide a synthesis.
+
+   Fails because the source is intentionally sharper: "don't just repeat my shit".

harry-writing-style-skill/EXAMPLES/casual-opinion/good.md

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+# Good Examples: casual-opinion
+
+1. > I think the old primary colour was fine, we just maybe need to not use it for cards and only use it on things like buttons.
+
+   Works because it is a low-ceremony design take with a concrete adjustment.
+
+2. > The more i think about it, ultimately this PR is reversible right cos it's just additive?
+
+   Works because the uncertainty is practical and the phrasing is unpolished.
+
+3. > Yeah this is close to what i wanted, it's a bit rough though. Padding needs evening out and the chart needs some padding.
+
+   Works because it gives the honest reaction and the concrete fixes.
+
+4. > why not just run it on the Timescale container rather than this weird shit
+
+   Works because the irritation is the point. Do not translate it into "alternative deployment strategy".
+
+5. > this is nice. We don't ned the +N square functionality. We can keep the rest.
+
+   Works because praise is brief and directly tied to a keep/remove decision.
+
+6. > I think for now we hide the stack tags on the index page completely tbh. It's just cluttering up the ui
+
+   Works because it uses a concrete product judgement, not a polished UX explanation.
+
+7. > okay it feels like they've got ambient lighting on them, they don't look good at all
+
+   Works because the visual criticism is blunt and specific enough to act on.
+
+8. > these checks seem really shitty then from what I'm hearing
+
+   Works because it keeps the emerging judgement instead of pretending certainty.
+
+9. > don't just repeat my shit, give me just the synthesis
+
+   Works because it corrects the agent's failure mode directly.
+
+10. > Keep them visible and disable the action, probably also sort those to the bottom.
+
+   Works because it makes a product call and includes a small ordering judgement.