---
name: hot-take-writing
description: "Writing social-media hot-take opinion pieces: turn a topic that is currently unfolding into a short review / long review / talking-head voiceover script with a clear stance, information gain and explicit boundaries. Covers topic screening, fact verification, stance selection, structural templates, platform specs and quality gates, and gives compliance red lines. Use for 'write a hot take', 'piggyback on a hot topic', 'hot-topic shortlist', 'drama review', 'news commentary', 'opinion piece', 'how should I read this news', 'write a short review', 'hot-topic talking-head script'. Does not handle image layout and typesetting (xiaohongshu-material / wechat-material) or publishing (release-manager)."
---

> Original skill · commissioned by the user · English edition, 2026-11-12

# Hot Take Writing

## 0. The one-line principle

**A hot take does not sell information, it sells judgment.** The information is available everywhere; the reader opens you because they want to know "so should I watch / buy / trust / follow this". Retelling the news is a press release; a piece with a stance, boundaries and an action recommendation is an opinion piece.

## 1. When to use

- A hot topic has just started (24–72 hours) and you need to beat the clock.
- The user asks "how should I read this news", "is this worth following", "write me a short review".
- You need to turn one hot topic into a Xiaohongshu (RED) note, a WeChat Official Account article, or a talking-head voiceover script.

**Do not use it for**: pure news aggregation (use `ai-trend-publish`), fictional stories (use `short-drama-script`), or breaking an existing long article into cards (use `xiaohongshu-material`).

## 2. Five-step flow

```text
screen the topic → verify the facts → fix the stance → write to the structure → pass the checks
```

### 2.1 Screen the topic (decide first whether to write)

| Dimension | Passing line | Drop it if it fails |
|---|---|---|
| Timeliness | Within 72 hours, and there is new development | Already cold, unless there is a new angle |
| Discussion | Real controversy, not just a press release | One-sided PR copy with no room for discussion |
| Relevance | Related to the account's positioning / audience | Pure novelty; gains followers but not the right followers |
| Information gain | You can add a point nobody else made | You can only retell, so it comes out as a press release anyway |
| Risk | Facts are verifiable, no privacy, no flaming | Rumor risk, minors, unresolved litigation |

**Write only when four dimensions pass**; if only two pass, write it as a one-line comment and do not make it a standalone piece.

### 2.2 Verify the facts (nail them down before writing)

- Time, place, person, numbers — each must have a source (official statement / authoritative media / the person's own words).
- Separate **fact** from **rumor**: a rumor must be written as "rumored online" or "according to XX reporting", never stated as a conclusion.
- Quote only original words, do not paraphrase; where uncertain, use "according to reports".
- At least 2 factual anchors (number, date, source), otherwise do not write.

### 2.3 Fix the stance (sayable in one sentence)

A stance is not "there is good and bad", it is one judgment that can be argued against:

- ✅ "Worth following, but do not treat it as a prestige drama."
- ✅ "It is not that it was not installed properly, it is that PATH did not recognize it."
- ❌ "This drama has both strengths and weaknesses and is worth a look." (says nothing)

**Test**: say your stance to a friend — can they argue against it immediately? If not, you are hedging.

### 2.4 Structure (conclusion first, five sections)

| Section | Function | Length (Xiaohongshu) | How to write |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Conclusion | Hook within 3 seconds | 1–2 lines | "Conclusion first: ..." |
| 2 Fact skeleton | Prove you are not making it up | 3–5 lines | Time / numbers / sources, keep only the most useful |
| 3 Both sides | A three-dimensional judgment | 4–8 lines | Say what is good first, then what is wrong |
| 4 Who it suits | Help the reader decide | 3–5 lines | "Suits whom / does not suit whom" |
| 5 Action + interaction | Conversion | 2–3 lines | Concrete advice + one question |

**The order cannot change**: the conclusion must be in the first 3 lines; "who it suits" must come before the ending; the interactive question goes on the last line.

### 2.5 Specs for the three formats

| Format | Platform | Title | Body | Tone |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Short review | Xiaohongshu (RED) | ≤20 characters, containing the hot-topic keyword | 300–800 characters, short paragraphs | Spoken, first person |
| Long review | WeChat Official Account | ≤64 characters | 800–2000 characters, with subheadings | Restrained, argued |
| Talking-head script | Douyin / WeChat Channels | Hook sentence ≤15 characters | 300–600 characters, short sentences | Sounds like speech, not reading aloud |

## 3. Quality gate (must pass after writing)

```powershell
python <SKILL_DIR>/scripts/hot_take_check.py --file draft.md --platform xiaohongshu
```

Check items: title length, whether the conclusion comes first, the number of factual anchors, whether the opposing side is present, whether "who it suits" is present, whether there is an interactive ending, whether paragraphs are too long, absolute phrasing, source citation. Only exit code 0 counts as a pass.

**Three self-check questions** (ones the script cannot catch):

1. Does this piece contain one sentence that **only I would say**?
2. If you swap out the main subject, does the piece still hold? If it does, you have not written anything specific.
3. How would someone who disagrees with me attack it? That attack point is exactly the boundary the piece most needs to add.

## 4. Compliance red lines

- No rumor: unverified information is written as "rumored online / according to reports", not as fact.
- No escalation: a character problem stays with the character, never an attack on the actor personally; a work problem stays with the work.
- No flaming: do not name peer accounts to compare or step on them, do not organize opposition.
- No privacy: minors, medical records, home addresses, private chat logs — never written.
- Professional disclaimers: finance adds "not investment advice"; medical / legal adds "defer to the official position".
- Traceable sources: at least one clickable source, and a "sources" list may close the piece.

## 5. Boundaries

- No image or typesetting work: hand to `xiaohongshu-material` / `wechat-material`.
- No publishing: hand to `release-manager` (pre-publish check) and the per-platform upload skills.
- No pure news aggregation: hand to `ai-trend-publish`.
- No fictional plotting: hand to `short-drama-script`.

## 6. Three samples (structure already validated)

| Sample | Stance sentence | Structural points |
|---|---|---|
| <SAMPLE_TITLE> drama review | "Worth following, but do not treat it as a prestige drama." | Conclusion first → production highlights → pacing problems → suits / does not suit → watch two episodes first |
| <SAMPLE_TITLE> celebrity-wedding piece | "Ten months from going public to marriage — the pace is very clear." | Fact timeline → the two people's work and public image → what a low-key wedding means → congratulations |
| <SAMPLE_TITLE> study-tour piece | "The school went bankrupt right after tuition was paid — this is not a joke." | What happened → the pitfalls of the study-tour market → who should be held responsible → a checklist before enrolling |

Common pattern: **conclusion in the first sentence, facts carrying numbers, both sides written, an action recommendation given, one question at the end**.