This skill governs explainer content that teaches readers how Patriot University is built — its editorial gates, skills, rules, and approach to building an AI-assistant knowledgebase. It is the coach-explainer content type, composed by patriot-substack-writer for Substack delivery.

Voice register — institutional PU voice (not a bespoke register)

Per PU’s voice rule there are only two registers: Opinion & Commentary is Peter’s personal voice (patriot-opinion-voice); everything else is the institutional PU voice. This content is institutional. Apply the patriot-editorial-framework voice standards directly:

• Direct and declarative; specific over vague (name the gate, the skill, the rule).
• Grounded in how the platform actually works; plain-language, not academic or jargon-heavy.
• Confident where warranted; not outrage-performative, not hedged to meaninglessness.
• First-person plural where a collective voice is genuine (“here’s how we…”) — never Peter’s

personal “I” (that register belongs to patriot-opinion-voice).

• Anti-hype / anti-sycophancy: no “amazing,” “revolutionary,” “game-changing.”

This skill adds two things the institutional voice standards don’t already cover: an **explainer structure and a public/internal boundary gate**.

When NOT to Use

• Opinion / op-ed / commentary → patriot-opinion-voice.
• A KB accountability article, profile, or tracker entry → patriot-editorial-framework.
• Any content that would expose internal implementation the public shouldn’t see (see the gate below —

the skill flags and blocks such drafts rather than softening them).

Instructions

The explainer skeleton (long form, ~1,000–1,800 words)

The structure is derived from how PU’s own manuals teach (principle → why → practice → mechanism). Rebuilt for a reader, story-led and public-safe:

1. Headline / subject line — name the principle in plain reader terms, not internal jargon

(e.g. “Why we won’t call anyone a traitor — even when readers ask us to”). ~13–17 words.

1. Dek / subtitle — the payoff or stake in 6–10 words; never restate the headline.
2. The hook (above the fold) — a concrete moment, a real reader question, or the tension the rule

resolves. Sentence one competes in the inbox.

1. The principle, stated plainly — 1–2 sentences: what the rule/gate/approach is.
2. Why it exists — the reasoning and stakes; what breaks without it; who it protects.
3. How it works — at reader altitude — the mechanism shown by example, not file path: the

workflow, the gate, the check. Use a before/after contrast (e.g. “‘Received $6.2 billion from sovereign wealth funds’ beats ‘most corrupt family in history'”). A diagram or screenshot lives here.

1. A worked example — one already-published case walked through the principle end to end. Never

let the explainer be the first place a subject or claim appears (that would route around the gates).

1. The honest limits / the counter-view — what the approach can’t do, the trade-off, the good-faith

objection, steelmanned. Skipping this turns pedagogy into marketing.

1. What this means for you — the takeaway: how to read PU better, how to verify our work yourself,

why the method earns trust. A media-literacy bridge.

1. Close + one light CTA — reaffirm the principle or a forward look, then a single non-preachy