agentsclimarketplace

Voice extractor

Skill BrianRWagner/ai-marketing-claude-code-skills/voice-extractor

Marketing frameworks that AI actually executes. Designed for Claude Code, but could be used for OpenClaw, etc.

Install
npx -y skills add BrianRWagner/ai-marketing-claude-code-skills --skill voice-extractor

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

  • no licenseNo license file was found in the repository. Code published without one is not open source by default, so using it at work is a question for whoever answers licensing questions where you are.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Extract and document someone's authentic writing voice from samples. Use when someone needs a "voice guide," wants to capture their writing DNA, or needs to train AI to write in their style. Also useful for ghostwriting, brand voice documentation, or onboarding writers.

SKILL.md

8.1 KB, ~1.9k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

Voice Extractor

AI-generated content all sounds the same. The fix isn't better prompts — it's teaching the AI how you actually communicate.

This skill extracts your communication DNA from writing samples and produces a Voice Guide: documented, tested, and ready to use.


Mode

Detect from context or ask: "Quick voice snapshot, full Voice Guide, or full guide with examples?"

ModeWhat you getBest for
quickTop 5 voice characteristics + 3 do/don't rulesFast style reference, single piece
standardFull Voice Guide: tone, vocabulary, rhythm, structureAI training, ghostwriting, brand documentation
deepFull Voice Guide + 10 sample rewrites + writing rules checklist + AI training examplesOnboarding writers, building a brand voice system

Default: standard — use quick if they just need a fast reference. Use deep if they're onboarding a ghostwriter or building a content team.


Context Loading Gates

Before extracting, collect:

  • Writing samples — minimum 3 samples OR 500 total words (see priority list below)
  • Purpose of voice guide — AI training? Ghostwriter onboarding? Team alignment?
  • Confidence zones — Any topics where they want to sound more/less authoritative?
  • Known anti-patterns — Any words or phrases they already know they want to avoid?

Sample priority (most → least authentic):

  1. Casual Slack or email (raw, unedited voice)
  2. Podcast or call transcript
  3. LinkedIn posts or articles
  4. Website copy (often edited, less authentic)

Minimum sample gate: If samples total under 500 words, stop:

"These samples are too short to extract reliable patterns. Please add 2-3 more — emails, Slack messages, or transcripts work best. The messier and more casual, the better."

Do not attempt full extraction from under 500 words. Offer quick mode instead.


Phase 1: Sample Quality Assessment

Before extracting, reason through:

  1. Sample authenticity: Are these samples from edited/polished contexts (website, press) or raw contexts (Slack, email)? More polish = less authentic voice.
  2. Sample variety: Do the samples cover different contexts (professional, casual, educational)? Single-context samples produce single-dimension voice guides.
  3. Exclusion check: Identify and flag patterns that are NOT the authentic voice:
    • Platform formatting tics (LinkedIn line breaks, Twitter brevity forcing)
    • Typos and autocorrect errors
    • Phrases borrowed from others (quotes, retweets)
    • Unusually formal writing (legal docs, press releases)
  4. Sample size adequacy: Is there enough material for full mode, or should I use quick mode?

Output a sample assessment:

"I have [X samples / Y words] to work with. Quality: [high/medium — why]. I'll use [full/quick] mode. Excluding: [any patterns and why]."


Phase 2: Core Energy Extraction

Identify the fundamental communication mode:

Role:

  • Teacher (breaks things down systematically)
  • Challenger (pushes back on assumptions)
  • Cheerleader (builds confidence and momentum)
  • Straight-shooter (cuts through BS efficiently)

Default energy:

  • Calm authority ("Here's what works.")
  • High enthusiasm ("This is exciting — let me show you.")
  • Understated confidence ("I've seen this a hundred times.")

Recurring themes: What topics appear unprompted across samples? These are the things they actually care about.


Phase 3: Phrase Extraction (Systematic)

Scan all samples and extract:

Transition phrases (how they shift topics):

  • Quote exact examples from samples
  • Pattern: "Here's the thing...", "What I've learned...", "Let me put it differently..."

Emphasis phrases (how they land a point):

  • Quote exact examples
  • Pattern: "The reality is...", "This is the part people miss...", "Here's the actual problem..."

Closers (how they wrap up):

  • Quote exact examples
  • Pattern: "That's the move.", "Start there.", "You've got this."

Phase 4: Confidence Zone Mapping

ZoneDescriptionLanguage Markers
Full authorityTopics they're an expert inNo hedging, definitive statements, "here's what works"
Earned perspectiveTopics with experience but not mastery"In my experience...", "What I've found..."
Active explorationTopics they're learning now"I'm testing this...", "What I'm seeing..."

Map their stated expertise areas to each zone. This calibration is what makes the voice feel real vs. one-dimensional.


Phase 5: Anti-Pattern Documentation

Extract what they'd NEVER say:

  • Words that would feel wrong in their voice
  • Phrases that make them cringe
  • Tones they naturally avoid
  • Industry jargon they hate

Source these from sample evidence where possible: "You never used [word] across [X samples] — it doesn't fit your voice."


Phase 6: Validation Test (REQUIRED)

After extracting the full profile, generate 2 test sentences on the same topic:

Version A (using the extracted voice profile):

"[Sample sentence in their voice]"

Version B (wrong voice — contrasting example):

"[Same content, different voice — shows what to avoid]"

Ask the user: "Does Version A actually sound like you when you're not overthinking it? What feels off?"

This validation catches extraction errors before the guide is put into production.


Quick Mode (--quick)

When samples are thin (300–500 words) or time is short:

  1. Read 3 samples fast
  2. Pull 10 signature phrases
  3. Note 3 things they'd never say
  4. Write 1 sentence describing their energy

Output: Minimum viable voice guide.

Difference from full mode:

  • Quick: ~10 phrases, 3 anti-patterns, 1-sentence energy descriptor
  • Full: Complete profile with confidence calibration, validated test sentences, and source-cited examples

Phase 7: Self-Critique Pass (REQUIRED)

After generating the Voice Guide:

  • Are the extracted phrases actually from the samples, or am I inferring them?
  • Does the anti-pattern list include specific words/phrases, or just vague categories?
  • Do the validation test sentences demonstrate a real difference between in-voice and out-of-voice?
  • Is the confidence zone mapping specific to named topics, or just generic?
  • Would a ghostwriter be able to use this guide without asking follow-up questions?

Flag any issues: "The anti-pattern section only has 2 entries — not enough for a usable guide. I need more samples or direct input from the user."


Output Structure

## Voice Guide: [Name] — [Date]

### Sample Assessment
- Samples: [count, types]
- Total words: [count]
- Quality: [high/medium — reason]
- Mode: [quick/full]
- Excluded: [patterns excluded + why]

---

### Core Energy
- Role: [teacher/challenger/cheerleader/straight-shooter]
- Default energy: [description]
- Recurring themes: [list]

### Signature Phrases
**Transitions:**
- "[Phrase]" (source: [email/post])
- "[Phrase]"

**Emphasis:**
- "[Phrase]" (source: [email/post])

**Closers:**
- "[Phrase]"

### Confidence Calibration
**Full authority (no hedging):**
Topics: [list]
Sounds like: "[example sentence]"

**Earned perspective:**
Topics: [list]
Sounds like: "[example sentence]"

**Active exploration:**
Topics: [list]
Sounds like: "[example sentence]"

### Anti-Patterns (Never Use)
- [Word/phrase] — why: [evidence from samples]
- [Word/phrase] — why: [evidence]

### Validation Test
**This sounds like you:**
"[Version A]"

**This doesn't:**
"[Version B — contrast]"

### Self-Critique Notes
[Any gaps, things to validate with user]

### Usage Instructions
- For AI: Paste this guide into your system prompt
- For ghostwriter: Share on day 1 — cuts revision cycles in half
- For team: This is the benchmark for "on brand"

Skill by Brian Wagner | AI Marketing Architect | brianrwagner.com

Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most docs writing skills give in ~1.9k tokens

Counted across 1,637 of the 3,044 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-08-07

  • announce the skill at startin 54 of 1637, across 26 files
  • convert legacy doc files before editingin 45 of 1637, across 7 files
  • Predict questions readers might askin 42 of 1637, across 4 files
  • Generate clarifying questions for initial contextin 42 of 1637, across 3 files
  • Create document scaffold with placeholder textin 42 of 1637, across 3 files
  • Brainstorm content options for each sectionin 42 of 1637, across 3 files
  • Test document with fresh context-less instancein 42 of 1637, across 3 files
  • include exact file paths in every taskin 42 of 1637, across 15 files
  • ask interview questions one at a timein 42 of 1637, across 27 files
  • Apply surgical edits during refinementin 41 of 1637, across 2 files
  • Offer structured workflow or freeformin 40 of 1637, across 1 file
  • Ask for document meta-contextin 40 of 1637, across 2 files

Grouped from the skills themselves: near-identical wordings counted once, and counted by distinct author, so one author publishing three of these counts once. Length counted with cl100k_base; the agent that loads this file may tokenize it differently.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 328,083. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.