How This Post Was Made
Prompt: “create a new post about our promo system, see previous commits, note the new promo system uses ‘offer codes’ to avoid eligibility issues, such as users who previously subscribed or even had a trial were ineligible, which could not be detected with storekit2. note the lightweight server component, so we can enable/disable promos server-side. note the client side has ‘supported promos’ so we can add support and adjust UI elements etc over time. note also the appstore skill+script system which lets us manage offer codes etc with appstoreconnect. create a pr for this new post.”
Generated by Claude using the blog-post-generator skill. Based on production code from Hello Weather’s promo system.
Rewrite (2026-09-01): Part of an archive-wide rewrite. The owner asked, “with Fable 5.1, supposedly the writing quality is much better, I’m wondering if we should do a pass on all of the blog posts we have so far to improve them. should we start with the latest one?” and, after a pilot on the worktrees post, “I like the rewrite in any case and we have a lot of Fable capacity at the moment, should we go for it and dispatch an initial round of research to improve our skills, agents.md, etc and then dispatch sub-agents to rewrite each post? this could be done in a single PR, I think.” Four Claude Fable 5.1 agents surveyed the archive to settle the voice and structure rules now in the blog-post-generator skill, and one agent rewrote this post under them. The post now opens on the failed purchase instead of a claim that promotions are hard, each layer’s reason sits next to its code, and Why This Works states what shipped and what it cost rather than restating the Solution. Code blocks, dates, numbers, links, and headings are unchanged, and no facts were added.
Fact check (2026-09-01): The owner asked, “1) dispatch research into the ~/Code/helloweather repos to validate the posts’ content, for example checking the StoreKit code we shared is correct. 2) fix the “Pre-existing oddities” using your judgement, and feel free to make “judgment calls” as you see fit – this is a blog meant to be authored by AI and is expected to lean on AI model judgement calls, advancements in model capabilities may prompt future editing/rewriting sessions, and for each one I’ll want them to be driven autonomously.” One Claude Fable 5.1 agent checked this post’s code excerpts, numbers, dates, and quoted rules against the source repositories. The promo window and redemption-code expiry were corrected from March to April 2026, the month the campaign actually ran, with the dates unquoted as the config has them; the offer_codes block was updated to the shape that shipped (pay_as_you_go, offer_eligibility: all, dated reference names, rounding policy) since the post had copied a superseded February draft; the JSON example was fixed to show promo as a top-level scalar rather than a sibling of a forecast key; Api::Promo and PromoManager excerpts gained the strategy and promoDebug definitions they referenced; the StoreKit eligibility bullets that the source could not support were reduced to the two cases the original prompt named; and the “multiple campaigns, zero tickets” claim was dated to April 2026 with the verifiable June campaign stated separately.
Rewrite (2026-09-03): Plain-register pass, pilot for issue #66, after a reader said the posts read like AI. Archive batch 4, run after batch 3 (#70) and the prompts move (#71) merged. The prose now reads as one person explaining the work: “we” and contractions throughout, the eligibility problem stated in one fact per sentence, “which is why” and “is where … becomes concrete” replaced with subject-first sentences, and the closing paragraph split so each cost stands alone. Judgment calls: “never smaller than the promised one” became “at least the one we promised”, and “a paying subscriber never sees the banner” became “doesn’t see”, since the guard enforces both and plain words carry them; the “50% off!” banner quote, all numbers, dates, code blocks, and headings are unchanged. Prompts, verbatim:
Prompt 1: “we got feedback from a reader that our posts are still too AI/slop/wordy, an example and a possible skill to improve are included here, please review and let me know what you think, consider if we could do another big bang rewrite without spending too much of our Fable budget, or we could prep and schedule for when our limits are about to be reset and save in a date-triggered gh issue: I enjoy your ai posts, but man is it wordy :joy: [the reader’s quoted paragraph and a link to the SimpleEnglish skill followed; both are in issue #66]”
Prompt 2: “agreed, but lets make this into an issue, I just enabled issues, document what your plan is with a new issue, then we can kick it off with the smaller sample, maybe keep going depending on token usage, and the reader can subscribe to the gh issue to track if they like. as usual, please include this prompting in the issue so people can follow along to see “how the sausage is made” if they’re interested. oh, and sorry, I think what I’m looking for is less about word counts, and more about “ai speak” as in, here’s a bit more slack chatter about this with the reader: I’m kicking off a blog rewrite thing, not 100% sure if I want to do a big bang today tho b/c Fable budgets [10:38 AM]but I’ll report back READER [10:39 AM] I’ll be curious. Will it be “byte for byte identical” ??? :joy:”
Prompt 3: “and the density issue, the quote the reader provided is a perfect “what not to do” example, I think”
Prompt 4: “another possible thing to mix into the skill changes would be the ELI5 idea, which I generally like, I often ask AI to ELI5 after dispatching research so I get a human-readable explanation of the why, what, how etc”
Prompt 5: “go ahead and kick off the pilot PR”
Prompt 6: “perhaps the use of Opus for the writing is a source of the problem? I’m finding Opus to be a bad writer, and Fable 5.1 to be much better. the reader reports: Also I think it’s funny that the ai suggestions are still bad. “extracting from the source is what makes the slice trustworthy” Should just be “The slice is trustworthy because it’s directly extracted from the source.” – and the “Not every slice can be copied straight out of the source PR” rewrite paragraph is better, but perhaps still somewhat verbose/ai-slop-ish? I wonder if we can do just a bit better, but this does seem like a promishing direction. consider and report back with a recommendation.”
Prompt 7: “agreed except I wouldn’t worry about the word count at all. “wordy” isn’t the same thing as “word count” and I think the reader (and my) issue is more to do with the AI style of speaking, which is why we’re looking at the ELI5 and SimpleEnglish skill adaptations.”
Prompt 8: “merge it and start the first batch of ten, then I can check usage, and then we can keep going – just to check, are you saying the total spend would be ~6M tokens?”
Prompt 9: “usage looks fine, merge it and run batch 2”
Prompt 10: “usage is fine, please continue – one more thing – at the end (or perhaps with future batches?) I’d like to change the “How This Post Was Made” sections in all posts to not have the prompt in the post itself, rather, the prompts should be moved into PR body if editable, or comments, then the “How This Post Was Made” can have the last edit date and a link to the Pull Requests / Prompts – then there’s less cruft at the end for readers that just want to copy paste a post into their agent – wdyt?”
Prompt 11: “sounds good”
Prompt 12: “for the “How This Post Was Made” maybe we move the date down there as well, so it’s like first posted by MODEL on DATE, last edited by MODEL on DATE, View: PROMPTS, HISTORY or something along those lines, so it’s all in one place?”
Prompt 13: “agreed, go”