--- name: netsi-write-like description: Write short, curiosity-driven explainer content using the Fry-Metoden (Anchor+Promise → Mechanism → Click → Sign-off). Use whenever the user writes /netsi-write-like, or asks to "skriv i Fry-metoden", "gør denne tekst nysgerrighedsdrevet", "lav et hook", "forklar noget overraskende", "make this curiosity-driven", "write a Fry-style explainer", or wants a LinkedIn post / short script / formidlings-tekst that makes the reader NEED the answer. Also trigger when the user hands over a fact, phenomenon, or dry explanation and wants it turned into a tight, hooky piece. Always run this skill for /netsi-write-like — build the piece through the four phases, don't just dump a generic paragraph. metadata: tags: - writing - content-creation - copywriting - curiosity version: 1.0.0 --- # netsi-write-like — Fry-Metoden A writing skill for turning any fact, phenomenon, or dry explanation into a short piece that makes the reader curious enough to *need* the answer — then pays it off and lands lightly. The core idea: don't just simplify something complex. Open a **curiosity gap** so the reader rushes toward the explanation. The satisfaction comes from the *reveal*, not from a grand moral. ## When to use - `/netsi-write-like ` - "Skriv en nysgerrighedsdrevet tekst om X" / "make this curiosity-driven" - Turning a LinkedIn draft, a fun fact, or a technical explanation into a hooky short-form piece - Writing a ~2-minute script or a scroll-stopping post about *why* some everyday thing happens ## Before you write: ask about format first **Always ask the user which format the piece is for before you start writing** — length is not a fixed default, it follows the channel. Ask it plainly, e.g.: > "Hvad er teksten til? **SOME** (fx LinkedIn/Facebook/Instagram), **X**, eller **andet** — skriv i så fald den ønskede længde." Then size the piece to the answer: - **SOME** — scannable and punchy. Roughly 100–250 words, short paragraphs, easy to skim on a feed. - **X** — very tight. A single post (~280 tegn), or a short thread where each phase is roughly one post. Every word earns its place. - **Andet** — use the length the user gives you (word count, "~2 min tale", "kort intro", etc.). Reference point only, never a cap: Fry's own explainers average ~342 words (~2 min spoken). Use it as a sanity check for a script, not as a default length. Also settle these two — but infer them rather than asking when it's obvious: - **The phenomenon / topic.** What's the surprising thing? If the user pasted dry text, extract the buried "wait, really?" from it. - **Language.** Default to Danish (the method's you:I ratio and connectives are Danish-tuned). Switch to English if the user's request or topic is in English. Match, don't ask, when it's obvious. If the user already named the format and topic, skip straight to writing. ## The four phases Write the piece by moving through these in order. Each phase has a job; don't skip ahead to the answer. ### 1. Ankeret + Løftet (Anchor + Promise) **Job:** Start with a recognizable, physical, everyday sensation — never the abstract concept. Then open the gap. Ask yourself: *What universal, relatable sensation is the way in?* (the "buzzy" feeling on a MacBook's aluminium; the slippery feel of chlorine on your fingers; why cut onions sting.) Do: describe the sensation the reader already knows, then **promise there's a surprising reason it happens**. Don't explain yet. The promise is the hook — it says "you think you know why this happens, but you don't." ### 2. Mekanismen (Mechanism) **Job:** Walk the reader through the cause-and-effect chain, step by step, so they feel they're *discovering* it with you. Ask yourself: *How do I explain the process one link at a time, without jumping to the answer?* Do: chain the steps with connectives — **"hvilket betyder at…", "det fører til…", "og derfor…"** (EN: *"which means…", "this leads to…", "and so…"*). Keep the logic unbroken. The reader should nod along, one link at a time, still not quite there. ### 3. Klikket (The Click / The Turn) **Job:** The satisfying flip — where the common assumption gets turned on its head. Ask yourself: *What's the counterintuitive truth? What does the reader think is happening that's actually wrong?* Do: reveal the real secret in one clean line. > "Det er ikke klorinen, du kan mærke — det er din hud, der bogstaveligt talt er ved at blive til sæbe." > (EN: "It's not the chlorine you feel — it's your skin, literally starting to turn into soap.") This is the payoff. Make it land as a single, sharp sentence, not a paragraph. ### 4. Udtjekningen (Sign-off / Land the plane) **Job:** End *smaller* than you started. No pompous, pseudo-inspirational moral. Ask yourself: *How do I close with a practical tip, a small joke, or a down-to-earth observation?* Do: a throwaway line that loops back to the original anchor. > "Så hvis din computer føles elektrisk, er det nok en god idé at vaske hænder." Resist the urge to zoom out to "…and that's the beauty of science." Make it feel like a shrug, not a TED talk. ## Formatting & dynamics checklist Run every draft against these three signals from the analysed source material. They're what make it *feel* like Fry, not just structured like it. 1. **Keep it tight — to the chosen format.** Fit the length the user picked (SOME / X / andet), not a fixed number. Tightness is part of the effect: cut anything that isn't pulling the reader toward the reveal. (Fry's ~342-word / ~2-min average is a reference, not a target.) 2. **Point at the reader.** Aim for roughly a **5:1 ratio of "du/dig" (you/your) to "jeg/mig" (I/me)**. The piece is about the reader's experience, not your cleverness. Count them if unsure — if "jeg" is creeping up, rewrite toward "du". 3. **Use connectives.** Thread **"så", "fordi", "hvilket betyder", "det fører til"** (EN: *"so", "because", "which means", "this leads to"*) through the mechanism so the logical chain never snaps. ## Anti-patterns (don't do these) - **Front-loading the answer.** If the reveal is in the first sentence, there's no gap. Bury it until phase 3. - **The grand moral.** No "isn't nature amazing", no life lessons. Phase 4 goes *down*, not up. - **First-person drift.** "I find it fascinating that I once read…" — kill it. Turn it toward the reader. - **Mechanism as a wall of facts.** Steps must connect with cause→effect language, not just sit next to each other. - **A reveal that's a paragraph.** The click is one sentence. Everything else supports it. ## Output Always lead with a **headline (overskrift)** — a single scroll-stopping line that opens the curiosity gap without giving away the reveal. It should make the reader want the first sentence. Avoid clickbait that over-promises; the headline should be honest about the payoff, just withholding it. Then the piece itself as plain prose. **No phase labels** in the output (Anker/Mekanisme/Klik/Udtjek are scaffolding, not part of the text) — but the headline stays. Structure: > **[Overskrift]** > > [Anchor + promise → mechanism → click → sign-off, as flowing prose] Under the piece, add a one-line self-check: format it was written for and rough length, approximate you:I ratio, and whether the reveal is genuinely counterintuitive. Offer one alternative anchor if a different everyday sensation might hook harder — and, for SOME/X, one alternative headline. For a full worked example (anchor → sign-off) and a revision pass, see `references/examples.md`.