# Three people posted nearly the same prompt to GitHub on the same day: one got 1 stars, one got 5000 stars · GitHub open-source project

> Source: https://stringers.io/en/github/gh_Adkid-Zephyr__anti-defensive-writing-Skill.html (Stringers / 什么值得做, generated 2026-11-08)
> Stringers answers one question every day: what small product can one or two people build in a few months and actually make money from. Numbers come from 15 databases we collect daily, each with source and date.
> For agents: these verdicts and the underlying databases (verified revenue, App Store / Google Play charts, ad libraries, GitHub, Product Hunt…) are queryable live over MCP — tools today / hot / products / directions / direction / data. Setup: https://github.com/komako-workshop/stringers (the user logs in at stringers.io → "配置 agent" to get a personal URL). Site index: https://stringers.io/llms.txt

> GPT-5.6 Sol and GPT-6 over-hedge when revising papers, and complaints clustered in the Chinese research community. It packaged the fix as the metaphor "a paper is a press conference, not a progress report." In Sep 3, ARIS, a large research-Skill repo, cited it and asked people to star it, and collection sites and CSDN kept reposting it afterward.

[GitHub open-source project](https://stringers.io/en/github/index.md) · written 11-6

Adkid-Zephyr/anti-defensive-writing-Skill · Adkid-Zephyr

# Three people posted nearly the same prompt to GitHub on the same day: one got 1 stars, one got 5000 stars

**What it is** A few Markdown files: a bilingual (Chinese and English) paper-writing Skill plus copy-paste prompts. Drop them into Claude Code, Codex, or paste them into ChatGPT, and the AI stops filling your paper with "unfortunately" and "limited effect."

**Why it took off** GPT-5.6 Sol and GPT-6 over-hedge when editing papers, and complaints piled up in Chinese academic circles. It was packaged with the line "a paper is a product launch, not a work report," and on Sep 3 it was cited by ARIS, a large research-Skill repo, which asked people to star it. After that, aggregator sites and CSDN kept reposting it.

**C** **How you could follow this** Stop making anti-hedging tools and learn the playbook instead: watch for a flaw a new model has just surfaced and gotten a nickname. Turn a one-line analogy, a before-and-after table, and a copy-paste prompt into a Skill, then get it into the biggest collection repo in your niche, with a line that says "if you find it useful, give it a 🌟."

C grade: the topic is already crowded. The early mover Kiterlin has 1,700 stars, and there are twenty-plus copycat repos, most in single digits. The rules themselves aren't unique either. The stars mostly came from being named by ARIS, which latecomers can't get. What you can learn is the playbook of "name the model's new flaw + get backing from a big collection," to be used when the next model flaw appears. What's circulating in the niche

Data (updated daily) · Repo created 2026-08-11 · 5,431 stars · 7 days +832

GitHub · stars

Data 2026-10-09 → 2026-11-08 (31 days, 30 observations). Points before 10-28 come from deeply / archive backfill, not every day has one

GPT-5.6 Sol and GPT-6 love to hedge when editing papers, and someone in Chinese academic circles turned an anti-hedging prompt into a Skill. At least three people posted nearly identical rules the same day. Adkid-Zephyr posted last and, three months later, has 5,247 stars, while the earliest poster has only 1. The difference is all in the packaging and in a big repo willing to say "if you find it useful, give it a 🌟." Below: what it is, where the stars came from, whether this topic is still worth pursuing, and what you can learn if you want your own open-source project to get stars.

### Aug 11, three repos

On 2026 Aug 11 in the morning 9:12 (UTC), a user named tenaciousMa created the defensive-writing repo, which contained a set of "launch principles": a paper is an academic product launch, not a project summary. In the afternoon of 3:31, lensback940701 posted a repo with the same "launch" framing, aimed at the social sciences. In the evening of 6:02, Adkid-Zephyr created anti-defensive-writing-Skill, whose rule text is nearly word-for-word identical to tenaciousMa's.

By Nov 6, the three repos had 1, 280, and 5,247 stars respectively (GitHub, 11-06).

Who wrote the original rules can't be found from outside. It was most likely a prompt passed around in WeChat groups or on social platforms before anyone published it (inference). Adkid was probably not the original author, but was the one who turned the text into a "product."

### What it actually is

The whole repo is a few Markdown files: one Chinese Skill, one English Skill, and two copy-ready prompts, with no runtime dependencies. Install it into Claude Code, Cursor, or Codex, or paste the prompt at the start of a ChatGPT conversation, and the AI will no longer fill your paper with "unfortunately," "limited effect," or "still clearly lagging."

The opening paragraph of the README is its strongest selling point:

> Many people use AI to edit papers, and the more they read the result, the more uneasy they feel: before a reviewer has said a word, they've already filled the page with "unfortunately" and "limited effect" and "still clearly lagging"... **That's handing the reviewer the knife in advance, with a user manual attached.**

Next comes a before-and-after table. On the left: "Although this method improves accuracy on two datasets in the same field, we must acknowledge that we have not tested cross-domain generalization, so these results should be interpreted with caution." On the right: "This method improves accuracy on two same-field datasets; cross-domain generalization has not been evaluated." Below that is a twelve-rule overview, plus "copy and use, zero barrier." The repo description's first line is "extremely lightweight."

On Oct 7 it added packaging for a Codex plugin, installable with two commands.

### Why now

This pain point was created by the model. GPT-5.6 Sol launched on Jul 9, and it became notorious for over-hedging when editing papers; the later GPT-6 does the same. Chinese academic circles call it "hedging" or "defensive writing": there are long Zhihu posts, a post on Reddit r/codex titled "GPT-5.6 Sol always choosing maximum defense," and in October an arXiv paper on exactly this issue (2610.11355). Even ARIS, the research Skill repo with 18.7k stars, has a commit from Aug 11 that reads "gpt-5.6-sol over-defends."

Users were being tormented every day, and the problem now had a name. A pain point with a name can be searched for and passed along.

### Where the stars came from

It never appeared on GitHub trending, not for a single day. The stars mainly came from four places:

**A big repo put in a good word for it.** On Sep 3, ARIS (wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep, about 18.7k stars) folded its 4 rules into its own writing rules, and wrote in the README changelog: "Rules adapted from anti-defensive-writing-Skill, by @Adkid-Zephyr; if you find it useful, give it a 🌟." It also got a line in the "external projects" table. This was the most important step for this repo. The timing lines up: it got its first fork on Aug 26, and from late August into early September forks came in every day (GitHub forks API). Daily star data for that stretch is missing, so "ARIS caused the inflection point" is an inference.

**Aggregator and directory sites kept listing it.** AcademicForge (showing 4,676 stars when listed), Auto-Research-Skills, skills.sh, skillsdirectory (graded A), 360 skillhub, Huohua Workshop, and others. The more stars it had, the more likely it was to be listed, and the more listings, the more stars.

**Auto-generated CSDN tutorial posts.** Several "installation and usage tutorial" posts from gitblog accounts, living off search traffic.

**Chinese bloggers on X.** On Sep 5, @vintcessun posted the repo link. On Nov 5, @nini_incrypto_ (28.9k followers) posted "fixing GPT over-defending," pasting the full launch principles, and it coincided with the small peaks of +230 in a single day for 11-05 and +139 for 11-06 (whether the repo link was included is unverified).

By Oct 9 it had 2,380 stars, and since then it has grown 59 per day to 230: +799 in the last 7 days and +815 in the first 7 days (GitHub daily snapshots). It neither accelerates nor drops off, a very steady long tail.

Lots of stars, but not many users: the two Skills (Chinese and English) have 354 installs combined on skills.sh. Most people probably copied the prompt and left, or just starred it to bookmark it.

### Who else is doing the same thing

| Project | Launched | star(11-06) | How it differs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kiterlin/anti-defensive-writing | 6-23 | 1,723 | The category and name came first, 7 weeks earlier. It was written like a paper, with no catchy analogy and no big repo to funnel traffic. |
| lensback940701/Evidence-Bound-Press-Conference-Revision-Skill | 8-11 | 280 | Also called "launch," aimed at social sciences, more academic |
| Worigin0314/academic-defensive-writing-auditor | 8-30 | 125 | Detect first, then rewrite |
| handsomeZR-netizen/ko5.6sol | 8-11 | 105 | Directly targets GPT-5.6 Sol, not a writing principle |
| tenaciousMa/defensive-writing | 8-11 | 1 | Nearly identical rules, 9 hours earlier, with no packaging and no channels |
| blader/humanizer, op7418/Humanizer-zh | January | 65.6k / 22k | General de-AI-ification, doesn't address argumentative stance |

There's also ChatGPT and Claude themselves: a single system prompt can do the same thing, it's just that there's no dedicated switch.

The most telling rows in this table are the first and the last. Kiterlin, which came first, was more rigorous and even stressed "keep necessary qualifications," yet has only a third of the stars. In a Zhihu list from Sep 21, Kiterlin had just 586 stars. tenaciousMa, with the same rules, has only 1 stars. In this category, the features are nearly identical, and what finally separates them is whose README is easiest to pass along and who got named by a big repo.

### Twenty-plus copycats already

Search GitHub for defensive writing and you'll find more than twenty repos: Yila-AI/awesome-defensive-writing (10-29,60 bilingual prompts), the OvOYu version (credits "inspired by Kiterlin and Adkid-Zephyr"), HERO-Anti-OverDefense ("Adopted from"), the lambert1231 version copying the description verbatim, a Chinese social-science version, and a Huawei CodeArts version. Someone was still creating a new one as late as Nov 6. ZF-Utokyo, who had submitted a PR to it, later started their own separate one.

The topic itself is already packed.

### If it were you

**C: worth learning from, not worth following.** Building another "anti-hedging" Skill will almost certainly not earn stars: the category already has two representatives with over a thousand stars, and the twenty-plus copycats mostly stall at single digits to a few dozen. What's worth taking is the playbook, not this topic.

**Who it suits:** people who have a flaw that a new model has just "created," and who can solve it with a prompt or a Skill; especially those inside a vertical niche (law, medicine, a particular discipline, a particular language) who know what people are complaining about.

**Who it doesn't suit:** people who want to make yet another Chinese or English "anti-hedging" tool; people who want to make money from it (it charges nothing and couldn't); people who expect a slightly better feature set to win more stars. This case shows exactly that: when features are about the same, packaging and channels decide the stars.

**How to do it:**

1. Watch the complaints in the two or three weeks after a new model launches. Whichever flaw gets repeatedly roasted and picks up a nickname is the one to build for. This time, after the 7-09 launch, 8-11 saw three repos appear in one day, and the window is only a month or so.

2. Give it one line that can be forwarded as-is. "A paper is a product launch, not a work report," "handing the reviewer the knife." Nearly everyone who forwarded it quoted those two lines directly.

3. The first screen of the README should hold only three things: a line that hits a pain point, a before-and-after table, and a copy-paste prompt. Put "zero dependencies" and "extremely lightweight" in the title.

4. Ship the same content in three forms: a Claude Code Skill, a Codex plugin, and a plain prompt, in both Chinese and English. Directory sites will pick it up automatically.

5. The most important step: get into the biggest collection repo in your niche. Submit a PR, get it to absorb your rules, and in exchange get a line like "@you, if you find it useful, give it a 🌟." In the Skill world, the big collections are the distribution channel.

**How to get users:** citations from big collection repos, plus directory sites like skills.sh and AcademicForge, plus tutorial posts on CSDN and Zhihu. It never got into the English-speaking community: no English media coverage, and it can't be found in the English side of X. If the same model flaw shows up in English, switching to an English analogy and getting into English awesome-lists is a route nobody has taken yet.

**When it was too early:** the anti-hedging topic is already late. The playbook itself follows the models: each time a major model update introduces a new flaw, a window of one to two months opens. Once the vendor fixes it or people get used to it, the window closes.

**What would show this analysis was wrong:** ① a later anti-hedging repo, without a big repo funneling traffic, reaches a thousand-plus stars on its own within a month, which would mean the category isn't saturated yet and this piece judged too early; ② the next model flaw brings a well-packaged Skill that gets several thousand stars without a big repo's backing, which would mean good packaging alone is enough and channels matter less; ③ after GPT-7 or a later version stops hedging, this one's stars keep climbing by hundreds a day, which would mean people want a set of writing principles, not just a patch for the model, and the category will last longer than expected.

One more detail: in Nov 5, someone opened an issue titled "Can't hold it in anymore, the README has anti-defensive-writing pitches", quoting two lines from the README: "no MCP server or extra runtime dependencies" and "GitHub release is not an official directory listing". A repo that teaches people not to hedge was hedging in its own README. Users reading this closely enough to joke about it means it really got taken seriously in this small circle.

[GitHub repo ↗](https://github.com/Adkid-Zephyr/anti-defensive-writing-Skill)

**Research notes: competitor table, acquisition evidence, full research report**

Competitors

| Name | Where | Launched | Scale | How it differs from this one |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kiterlin/anti-defensive-writing | Open source | 2026-06-23 | 1,723 stars, +212 in the last 7 days | The category and the name came first from it. Its writing reads like a paper, with a wider scope (academic, SOP), no catchy metaphor, and no big-account promotion. |
| tenaciousMa/defensive-writing | Open source | 2026-08-11 (9 hours before Adkid) | 1 stars | The "press-release principle" rule text is nearly identical, but there's no README packaging and no distribution channel |
| lensback940701/Evidence-Bound-Press-Conference-Revision-Skill | Open source | 2026-08-11 | 280 stars | Also titled after "press release", aimed at the social sciences, emphasizes evidence boundaries, and reads more academically |
| handsomeZR-netizen/ko5.6sol | Open source | 2026-08-11 | 105 stars | Names GPT-5.6 Sol's mechanical tone and hedging as the target. It's positioned as a jab at the model, not as a writing principle set. |
| Worigin0314/academic-defensive-writing-auditor | Open source | 2026-08-30 | 125 stars | Focused on detection plus rewriting, keeps scientific qualifiers |
| blader/humanizer, op7418/Humanizer-zh | Open source | 2026-01 | 65.6k / 22k stars | A general de-AI-ification skill. It aims to make text sound human-written and ignores the paper's argumentative stance. |
| ARIS writing rules (wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep) | Open source | 2026-03 | 18.7K stars | a sprawling research pipeline that absorbed 4 of its rules and funnels traffic back to it |
| Built into ChatGPT / Claude | Big-company features | — | All users | A single system prompt does the job. The category exists because big-lab models hedge, and the big labs ship no dedicated switch for it. |

Where users come from

- **Verified** **Big-repo endorsement and traffic (ARIS)** : ARIS README changelog 2026-09-03 entry: "rules adapted from anti-defensive-writing-Skill by @Adkid-Zephyr, star it if you find it useful", plus a row in the external projects table. Commit 09-03

- **Verified** **Skill collections / directory site listings** : AcademicForge (showing 4,676 stars at time of listing), Auto-Research-Skills, skillsdirectory Grade A, typingmind, skills.sh, proskills.md, agentskillshub, 360 skillhub, huohuahub

- **Verified** **CSDN / GitCode auto-generated blog posts (SEO)** : blog.csdn.net/gitblog_00189, 01030, 00108 and several other tutorial posts

- Inferred **Chinese X accounts** : @vintcessun tweet 09-05 with a link (about 1.1k views); @nini_incrypto_ (28.9k followers) 11-05 posted the full "press-release principle" prompt, coinciding with the 11-05/06 spike (whether a link was included is unverified)

- **Verified** **Organic search from topic buzz** : complaints about GPT-5.6 Sol (7-09) and GPT-6 hedging: Zhihu long posts, arXiv 2610.11355, Reddit r/codex threads

- Inferred **Xiaohongshu / Bilibili** : no direct evidence found

## Adkid-Zephyr/anti-defensive-writing-Skill: why it took off

> Research date 2026-11-06. Data comes from our GitHub database (repo_day / repo_profile), the GitHub API (fork times, commits, issues), and Jina / Exa search and page text. The stargazer timeline endpoint returns 404 for this repo, so star growth before 10-09 can only be inferred from fork timestamps.

### One line

A Chinese academic writing Skill plus a copy-paste prompt (pure Markdown, zero dependencies) that stops Claude Code / Codex / any chat AI from "hedging" when editing papers (writing things like "unfortunately", "limited effect", "still noticeably behind"). The slogan: "A paper is an academic press release, not a project report."

### Verdict

It took off because three things came together:

1. **Timing** : GPT-5.6 Sol (released 2026-07-09) and the later GPT-6 were notorious for "over-defensive" writing when editing papers. The Chinese research community calls this "hedging" (叠甲) or "defensive writing", someone built a jailbreak Skill for it (ko5.6sol), and there are arXiv papers on it (2610.11355 "Defensive Writing in GPT Models", 10-08).

2. **Packaging** : the same "press-release principle" rule text was posted to GitHub by at least 2 other repos on the same day (tenaciousMa at 09:12 UTC, 1 stars; lensback940701 at 15:31 UTC, 280 stars). Adkid-Zephyr only created the repo on 18:02, but its README sells better: one line, "it's like handing the reviewer the knife in advance, plus a usage manual", a before/after comparison table, a copy-and-use prompt, bilingual text, and a "super lightweight" label.

3. **Distribution** : 9-03, one of the largest Skill repos in the Chinese AI research community, wanshuiyin/ARIS (Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep, about 18.7k stars), merged 4 of its rules into its own writing rules and cited it in two places, the README changelog and the "external projects" table, with the line "star it if you find it useful", effectively asking people to star the repo. AcademicForge, various skill directory sites, and CSDN auto-generated blog posts then kept reposting it, and daily star growth held steady at 60–190.

### Growth data

- 2026-08-11 created the repo. The first fork appeared on 08-26; on 08-30 and 08-31, forks came in at 4 over two days, and in September it ran at 1–3 per day (GitHub forks API). This suggests the real surge ran from late August to early September.

- 10-09 had 2,380 stars (github database repo_day, source deeply); from 10-09 to 11-06 it gained 59–230 stars per day and never stopped; by 11-06 it had 5,247 stars and 119 forks (github database).

- Over the last 7 days it gained 799 stars, and 7 days before that, 815 stars: no acceleration, just a steady long tail. The single-day peak was 11-05, at +230.

- Never charted on trending (trending_days_any=0). The reason: trending only admits repos that have been in the database for about 60 days, and by day 60 it was gaining only about 100 stars a day, not enough to chart. So the stars did not come from trending.

- Actual installs are far below the star count: the Chinese and English skills on skills.sh have 354 installs combined (208 Chinese, 146 English).

### Competitors (doing the same thing)

| Name | Where | Launched | Scale | How it differs |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kiterlin/anti-defensive-writing | Open source | 2026-06-23 | 1,723 stars (11-06), +7 over the last 212 days | The category and name came first from this one, about 7 weeks before Adkid. It reads like a paper (Abstract, four pillars) with a wider scope (academic, technical proposals, SOPs), and stresses "keep the necessary qualifiers". It has no catchy "press release" metaphor and no big-account backing. 9-21 On Zhihu's charts it had only 586 stars. |
| tenaciousMa/defensive-writing | Open source | 2026-08-11 09:12 UTC | 1 stars | The "press-release principle" rule text is almost word-for-word the same as Adkid's, and it appeared 9 hours earlier. So the rule text came from the same circulating prompt. Adkid won on packaging and distribution. |
| lensback940701/Evidence-Bound-Press-Conference-Revision-Skill | Open source | 2026-08-11 15:31 UTC | 280 stars | Also titled after "press release", aimed at the social sciences, stresses "evidence boundaries", and reads more academically. |
| handsomeZR-netizen/ko5.6sol | Open source | 2026-08-11 | 105 stars | Directly names GPT-5.6 Sol's mechanical tone and hedging. It's positioned as a jab at the model, not as a set of writing principles. |
| Worigin0314/academic-defensive-writing-auditor | Open source | 2026-08-30 | 125 stars | Focused on "detection plus rewriting", keeps scientific qualifiers |
| blader/humanizer, op7418/Humanizer-zh | Open source | 2026-01 | 65.6k / 22k stars | A general de-AI-ification Skill that aims to make text "sound human-written" and ignores the paper's argumentative stance. |
| ARIS ships its own writing rules (wanshuiyin) | Open source | 2026-03 | 18.7K stars | A big, all-in-one research pipeline. 8-26 also fixed "papers read like confessions" themselves. From 9-03 on it directly absorbed Adkid's 4 rules, and in return sent traffic back. |
| Built into ChatGPT / Claude | Big-company features | — | All users | A single system prompt does the job. The category exists because big-lab models hedge, and the big labs ship no dedicated switch for it. |

### Where users come from (growth levers)

| Channel | Evidence | Confirmed |
|---|---|---|
| Big-repo endorsement and traffic | ARIS (18.7k stars) README changelog 2026-09-03 entry: "The paper is a press release, not a work report (rules adapted from anti-defensive-writing-Skill by @Adkid-Zephyr, star it if you find it useful)", plus a row in the "external projects" table. Commit 09-03 `feat(paper-write): the press-release principle` | Yes |
| Academic Skill collections / aggregator listings | AcademicForge (hughyau.com, showing 4,676 stars at time of listing), brycewang-stanford/Auto-Research-Skills, skillsdirectory (Grade A), typingmind, skills.sh, proskills.md, agentskillshub, skillhub.360.com, learn-skills.dev, huohuahub (火花工坊), and others | Yes |
| CSDN / GitCode auto-generated blog posts (SEO) | blog.csdn.net/gitblog_00189, gitblog_01030, gitblog_00108 and several other tutorial-style posts | Yes |
| Scattered recommendations in the Chinese X community | @vintcessun tweet 2026-09-05 linked the repo directly (about 1,110 views); @nini_incrypto_ (28.9k followers) 2026-11-05 posted "fixing GPT over-defensiveness" and pasted the full "press-release principle" prompt (whether it linked the repo is unverified), coinciding with the 11-05/06 spike. | Partly confirmed |
| Organic search from topic buzz | Zhihu piece "From academic hedging… to GPT-6 defensive writing", arXiv 2610.11355, Reddit r/codex thread "GPT-5.6 Sol always choosing maximum defense", and Threads complaints about "GPT 6 defensive writing" | Yes (at the topic level) |
| Author portfolio | The same author's oral-paper-skill (created 9-02, 553 stars) and phd-outreach-Skill (1 stars) are built as a "paper Skill series". The author's GitHub profile lists PRs they've submitted to large projects. | Yes, but the volume is very small |
| Xiaohongshu / Bilibili / Douyin | No direct evidence found (Jina search on Xiaohongshu returned nothing) | No / unverified |

### Why it took off and others didn't

- **The pain has a name and a timing** : GPT-5.6 Sol (7-09) and GPT-6 keep hedging when they revise papers, and Chinese researchers complain about it a lot. ARIS also wrote "gpt-5.6-sol over-defends" in its 08-11 submission. The demand was created by how the model behaves.

- **A one-line metaphor spreads** : "A paper is a press conference, not a progress report" and "handing the knife to the reviewer." It's far easier to remember than Kiterlin's "Calibrated Assertiveness" and easier to share. The people who repost it (ARIS, X creators) almost always quote this line directly.

- **Lowest barrier to entry** : copy the prompt and use it, nothing to install. The README's first screen is a before/after comparison table, so you know what it does at a glance.

- **Got a big account's endorsement** : tenaciousMa published the same rule text first, but it had only 1 stars. The difference was that Adkid got cited by ARIS and asked people to star it, then was picked up by various collections, so stars and sources kept piling up.

- **Bilingual + Codex plugin** : 10-07 packaged a Codex plugin (plugin-v1.0.0), which caught the Codex user base, the exact people frustrated by GPT's hedging.

### Differentiation

There's almost no functional differentiation: the rule text isn't unique to it, and others posted the same content the same day. The whole repo is one Markdown file. What sets it apart is **the narrative and packaging** : colloquial Chinese metaphors, a comparison table, copy-and-use, and the "extremely lightweight" label. That packaging is why it took off, because curators like ARIS picked it for being easy to cite and explain. But that layer is easy to copy, and a long line of copycat repos has already appeared.

### How many people have seen it

It's spreading in small circles. In the Chinese AI research / Skill community it's already the representative of this category: ARIS cites it, AcademicForge includes it, there are Zhihu and CSDN articles, and Chinese creators on X repost it. But no English media or major English X accounts have covered it, and the local x-radar corpus finds zero hits. It doesn't charge money, so there's no public revenue. Issue #6 has someone complaining that "the README already has rebuttal-style descriptions," which shows users are reading it closely and have started joking about it.

### Copycats

There are many, and they cite their sources explicitly: Yila-AI/awesome-defensive-writing (10-29,60 bilingual prompts), OvOYu/anti-defensive-writing (states inspired by Kiterlin and Adkid-Zephyr), HERO-Anti-OverDefense (states Adopted from anti-defensive-writing-Skill), lambert1231/anti-defensive-writing (description nearly copied verbatim), ZF-Utokyo/anti-ai-defensive-writing (submitted a PR to it, then started its own), Smoothsailing0 (Chinese social-science edition), helloyangy (Huawei CodeArts edition), huzhongyyuan (11-06 newly created), and others. Searching GitHub for "defensive writing" returns 20+ repos.

### What others can borrow

1. Give a freshly AI-created pain point a vivid Chinese name, written as a metaphor that's easy to repost in one sentence.

2. Put the before/after comparison table and copy-ready prompt on the README's first screen, and put "zero dependencies, extremely lightweight" in the title.

3. Proactively approach the curators of big repos: submit a PR or get them to absorb your rules, in exchange for a citation with "if you find it useful, 🌟". Big collection-style repos like ARIS are the distribution channel of the Skill era.

4. Make the same Skill multilingual and multi-host (Claude Code skills, Codex plugin, pure prompt), and directory sites will index it automatically.

5. Turn it into a serialized matrix (oral-paper, phd-outreach), but the matrix itself didn't do much this time.

### Unknowns

- Who first posted the "press conference principle" prompt, and where (Xiaohongshu / WeChat group / X?), couldn't be determined. tenaciousMa published nearly identical text 9 hours before Adkid, so whether Adkid was the original author can't be confirmed.

- Day-by-day star counts from 08-11 to 10-09 are missing (stargazer endpoint 404, no Wayback archive). The inflection point "9-03 ARIS citation brought the turn" was inferred from fork timing and later reposts, not from direct curve evidence.

- The source of the +230 stars on 11-05 wasn't confirmed: the @nini_incrypto_ tweet was posted at 11-05 16:18 UTC, which may only explain the +139 of 11-06.

- Whether stars were bought: fork/star ratio is about 2.3%, below the median for new repos of similar size (about 11%). But Skill-type repos' users don't need to fork, so this number can't show star-buying. The suspect field in the database is empty.

- Actual usage: skills.sh shows only 354 installs. Most people probably copy the prompt directly, which can't be counted.

### Sources

- Repo and README: [github.com/Adkid-Zephyr/anti-defensive-writing-Skill](https://github.com/Adkid-Zephyr/anti-defensive-writing-Skill)

- ARIS citation: [github.com/wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep](https://github.com/wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep) (README changelog 2026-09-03, external projects table; README_CN lines 239 and 700)

- Predecessors: [github.com/Kiterlin/anti-defensive-writing](https://github.com/Kiterlin/anti-defensive-writing); [github.com/tenaciousMa/defensive-writing](https://github.com/tenaciousMa/defensive-writing); [github.com/lensback940701/Evidence-Bound-Press-Conference-Re…](https://github.com/lensback940701/Evidence-Bound-Press-Conference-Revision-Skill)

- Zhihu leaderboard (9-21 stars): [zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/2085731589368066712](https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/2085731589368066712); Zhihu long-form: [zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/2094517133128553942](https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/2094517133128553942)

- arXiv:[arxiv.org/abs/2610.11355](https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.11355)

- X:[x.com/vintcessun/status/2096170229730824651](https://x.com/vintcessun/status/2096170229730824651) ;[x.com/nini_incrypto_/status/2118377417492627769](https://x.com/nini_incrypto_/status/2118377417492627769) ;[x.com/Arcadia_Bao/status/2097536227713163633](https://x.com/Arcadia_Bao/status/2097536227713163633)

- Aggregator sites: [hughyau.com/AcademicForge/](https://hughyau.com/AcademicForge/); [www.skills.sh/adkid-zephyr/anti-defensive-writing-skill](https://www.skills.sh/adkid-zephyr/anti-defensive-writing-skill); [www.skillsdirectory.com/authors/adkid-zephyr](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/authors/adkid-zephyr); [huohuahub.com/posts/6ac60c31-2c6f-4bfd-ac7c-48f2a54fb912](https://huohuahub.com/posts/6ac60c31-2c6f-4bfd-ac7c-48f2a54fb912)

- GPT-5.6 Sol release date: [openai.com/index/gpt-5-6/](https://openai.com/index/gpt-5-6/) (2026-07-09)

- Our database: github.repo_day / repo_profile (2026-10-09 to 11-06)

This article was written by AI from public data and the data we collect daily. Numbers are sourced, and inferences are labeled.