editor - VIBE score
Archetypes
What is it? Why did we make it? How to get the most out of it.
After we build the VIBE score we wanted to tune it by putting in some of the best articles on the internet.
With this tuning I wanted to see if certain articles have a specific component pattern to them. One component is always high, and others lower?
It turns out yes. Articles have component patterns.
And the more we tested, the more we saw the patterns.
We call them archetypes.
Below are all the archetype patterns you'll see inside of Penfriend. Upon seeing the pattern of your article we label your content and score to see how well you fit the pattern.
In the future you'll be able to select a pattern, and then see where you're lacking, and what you can do about that.
How to Use This Guide
Each archetype follows the same structure:
What It Is - Core definition and purpose
The Shape - Visual pattern of high/low component scores
Must-Have Components - The 3 components you MUST nail (≥80%)
High-Weight Components - What the scoring system values most
Avoid Zones - Components that dilute this archetype's identity
Hallmarks of Excellence - What makes a great example
Real-World Examples - 3-5 links to study
Quick Reference: Archetype Shapes at a Glance
| Archetype | Top 3 Must-Haves | Highest Weight Components | Avoid |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal Blogger | Self-Reference, Vulnerability, Emotional Granularity | Self-Ref (18x), Emotional (15x), Vulnerability (12x) | Evidence, Data |
| Personal Essayist | Anecdotal Complexity, Sentence Burstiness | Anecdotal (15x), Emotional (12x), Pacing (10x) | Evidence, Data |
| Storyteller | Anecdotal, Dialogue, Sensory | Anecdotal (18x), Dialogue (12x), Sensory (10x) | Evidence, Method |
| Mentor/Guide | Voice of Experience, Advice, Self-Reference | Voice (15x), Anecdotal (12x), Advice (10x) | External Evidence |
| Thought Leader | Perspective, Anecdotal, Advice | Perspective (12x), Anecdotal (12x), Advice (8x) | Vulnerability, Heavy Self-Ref |
| Debater | Perspective, Stance, Rhetorical | Perspective (15x), Stance (12x), Rhetorical (10x) | Vulnerability, Sensory |
| Opinion Writer | Stance, Explicitness, Clarity | Stance (15x), Explicit (12x), Clarity (12x) | Perspective Balance |
| Satirist | Rhetorical, Polarity, Anecdotal | Anecdotal (12x), Rhetorical (12x), Polarity (12x) | Method, Data |
| Critical Analyst | Clarity, Limitation Awareness, Evidence | Clarity (12x), Perspective (10x), Limitation (10x) | Self-Ref, Vulnerability |
| How-To Article | Advice, Method, Skimmability | Skimmability (15x), Advice (15x), Method (12x) | Vulnerability, Emotion |
| Instructional Guide | Method, Skimmability, Flow | Skimmability (20x), Flow (18x), Method (18x) | All Personality |
| Research Document | Evidence, Method, Authority | Evidence (18x), Method (15x), Authority (12x) | All Personality |
| Business Analysis | Statistical, Clarity, Flow | Statistical (15x), Clarity (10x), Flow (12x) | Self-Ref, Vulnerability |
| Case Study | Method, Anecdotal, Statistical | Method (12x), Anecdotal (10x), Statistical (10x) | Vulnerability |
| Product Review | Clarity, Voice of Experience, Sensory | Clarity (12x), Voice (12x), Sensory (12x) | Evidence, Data |
| News Article | Evidence, Authority, Flow | Evidence (15x), Authority (12x), Flow (15x) | Self-Ref, Opinion |
| Interview | Dialogue, Anecdotal | Dialogue (20x), Anecdotal (15x), Voice (8x) | Method, Data |
| Inspirational Post | Emotional, Polarity, Advice | Emotional (15x), Anecdotal (10x), Advice (10x) | Evidence, Method |
Personal Blogger
What It Is
Raw, diary-like writing where you process your experience in real-time. This is "here's what happened to me and how I feel about it"—unpolished authenticity over performance. Think journal entries that happen to be public.
The Shape
High Scores (70-100%)
- Self-Reference: Constant "I/me/my" presence
- Vulnerability Markers: Admitting mistakes, fears, uncertainties
- Emotional Granularity: Specific feeling words (anxious, relieved, conflicted)
- Polarity: Emotional range from highs to lows
Mid Scores (40-70%)
- Anecdotal Complexity: Stories are present but may be simple
- Clarity: Clear enough, not overly crafted
- Empathy: Some acknowledgment of readers
Low Scores (0-40%)
- External Evidence: No citations needed
- Statistical Evidence: No data required
- Method Transparency: Not systematic
- Authority Signals: No credentials invoked
Must-Have Components (≥80%)
- Self-Reference - Own every sentence. This is YOUR story.
- Vulnerability Markers - Show the messy parts near "I/we"
- Emotional Granularity - Name specific feelings, vary them
High-Weight Components
The scoring system values:
- Self-Reference (18x weight) - Dominates everything
- Emotional Granularity (15x) - Second pillar
- Vulnerability Markers (12x) - Third pillar
- Anecdotal Complexity (8x) - Stories matter, but less
Avoid Zones
Stay UNDER 30% on:
- External Evidence - Don't cite studies
- Statistical Evidence - Don't lean on data
Hallmarks of Excellence
✓ Vulnerability feels SPECIFIC ("I checked my phone 47 times") not generic ("I was worried")
✓ Emotions are named precisely (not just happy/sad but wistful, antsy, vindicated)
✓ You can feel the person discovering insights as they write
✓ No pretense of having it figured out
✓ Stories are personal first, universal second
Real-World Examples
- Anne Lamott on grief and faith
- Cheryl Strayed's Dear Sugar columns
- Paul Kalanithi's blog posts (pre-book)
- Jenny Lawson (The Bloggess) on mental health
- Heather Havrilesky's Ask Polly
Personal Essayist
What It Is
Reflective, literary writing that transforms personal experience into something larger. You're not just telling what happened—you're crafting a meditation. Think Joan Didion, not a diary entry.
The Shape
High Scores (70-100%)
- Anecdotal Complexity: Rich narrative structure with cause→effect
- Sentence Burstiness: Varied rhythms, long and short
- Pacing Entropy: Unpredictable flow keeps attention
- Emotional Granularity: Nuanced feeling words
Mid Scores (40-70%)
- Self-Reference: Present but not overwhelming
- Perspective: Some angles considered
- Novelty: Precise word choices
- Sensory Experience: Some imagery
Low Scores (0-40%)
- External Evidence: Minimal citations
- Statistical Evidence: No data heavy lifting
- Method Transparency: Not instructional
Must-Have Components (≥80%)
- Anecdotal Complexity - Stories with causal depth and time anchors
- Sentence Burstiness - Musical prose, varied lengths
High-Weight Components
- Anecdotal Complexity (15x) - The spine
- Emotional Granularity (12x) - The heart
- Pacing Entropy (10x) - The rhythm
- Self-Reference (8x) - The lens
Avoid Zones
Stay UNDER 35% on:
- External Evidence - This isn't research
- Statistical Evidence - No data dumps
Hallmarks of Excellence
✓ Prose has rhythm—you can hear the sentences
✓ Anecdotes aren't just "what happened" but "why it mattered"
✓ Emotional complexity (not just one feeling, but contradictory ones)
✓ Personal experience illuminates something universal
✓ Reads like literature, not journalism
Real-World Examples
- Joan Didion - "Goodbye to All That"
- Leslie Jamison - "The Empathy Exams"
- Zadie Smith - "Joy"
- Ta-Nehisi Coates - "The Case for Reparations"
- Rebecca Solnit - "Men Explain Things to Me"
Storyteller
What It Is
Narrative-driven writing where vivid scenes, dialogue, and sensory details do the work. Show, don't tell. Think This American Life or a short story, not an essay.
The Shape
High Scores (70-100%)
- Anecdotal Complexity: Strong narrative arc
- Dialogue Presence: Quoted speech brings scenes alive
- Sensory Experience: Readers see/hear/feel/taste/smell
- Pacing Entropy: Rhythmic variation keeps engagement
Mid Scores (40-70%)
- Emotional Granularity: Shown through scene, not stated
- Polarity: Emotional range through story beats
- Rhetorical Devices: Some craft elements
Low Scores (0-40%)
- External Evidence: No citations
- Method Transparency: Not instructional
- Statistical Evidence: No data
Must-Have Components (≥80%)
- Anecdotal Complexity - Strong cause→effect narrative structure
- Dialogue Presence - Characters speak (≥10 char quotes)
- Sensory Experience - Vivid, grounded details
High-Weight Components
- Anecdotal Complexity (18x) - The foundation
- Dialogue Presence (12x) - Brings it alive
- Sensory Experience (10x) - Makes it real
- Pacing Entropy (8x) - The rhythm
Avoid Zones
Stay UNDER 30% on:
- External Evidence - Let the story do the work
- Method Transparency - This isn't how-to
Hallmarks of Excellence
✓ Scenes unfold in real-time with dialogue
✓ Sensory details are specific and grounded
✓ Reader experiences the story vs. hearing about it
✓ Characters (even if just you) have voices
✓ Narrative structure with setup→tension→resolution
Real-World Examples
Mentor/Guide
What It Is
First-hand wisdom delivered in an accessible, personal way. "I've been where you are, and here's what I learned." Authority comes from experience, not credentials.
The Shape
High Scores (70-100%)
- Voice of Experience: First-person + action verbs + time anchors
- Advice Strength: Clear directives and imperatives
- Self-Reference: Consistent "I/we" presence
- Anecdotal Complexity: Stories that teach
Mid Scores (40-70%)
- Perspective: Some angles considered
- Clarity: Clear evaluative language
- Skimmability: Scannable structure
Low Scores (0-40%)
- External Evidence: Light on citations
- Statistical Evidence: Minimal data
- Vulnerability Markers: Not overly confessional
Must-Have Components (≥80%)
- Voice of Experience - "I did this, I learned that"
- Advice Strength - Clear, confident directives
- Self-Reference - Own your lessons
High-Weight Components
- Voice of Experience (15x) - The core credential
- Anecdotal Complexity (12x) - Stories that teach
- Advice Strength (10x) - What to do
- Self-Reference (10x) - Personal authority
Avoid Zones
Stay UNDER 40% on:
- External Evidence - Trust is personal, not cited
Hallmarks of Excellence
✓ Advice feels earned through battle scars
✓ Stories show the lesson in action
✓ Tone is warm but confident
✓ Clear "do this, not that" moments
✓ Reader feels guided, not lectured
Real-World Examples
Thought Leader
What It Is
Big idea → curated stories → actionable insight. You synthesize patterns others miss and make them practical. Think James Clear, Seth Godin, or Adam Grant.
The Shape
High Scores (70-100%)
- Perspective: Multiple angles, connectives (however, yet, meanwhile)
- Anecdotal Complexity: Strategic stories that illustrate ideas
- Advice Strength: Clear takeaways
- Stance: Balanced hedges + boosters
Mid Scores (40-70%)
- Clarity: Evaluative language
- External Evidence: Some citations
- Voice of Experience: Some first-hand elements
- Skimmability: Scannable
Low Scores (0-40%)
- Vulnerability Markers: Not confessional
- Self-Reference: Present but restrained
- Emotional Granularity: Ideas over feelings
Must-Have Components (≥75%)
- Perspective - Show multiple angles, use connectives
- Anecdotal Complexity - Stories serve the idea
- Advice Strength - Make it actionable
High-Weight Components
- Perspective (12x) - The signature move
- Anecdotal Complexity (12x) - Ideas need stories
- Advice Strength (8x) - Ideas need action
- Clarity (7x) - Ideas need precision
Avoid Zones
Stay UNDER 30% on:
- Vulnerability Markers - Not about your wounds
- Keep Self-Reference UNDER 60% - It's about the idea, not you
Hallmarks of Excellence
✓ You see a pattern others missed
✓ Stories illustrate but don't overwhelm
✓ Multiple perspectives are steel-manned
✓ Clear "so what should you do?" moments
✓ Feels like synthesis, not just opinion
Real-World Examples
Debater
What It Is
Argumentative, multi-sided writing that steel-mans opposing views before making your case. You're not just stating your position—you're showing why other positions fall short.
The Shape
High Scores (70-100%)
- Perspective: Rich use of "however, yet, although, conversely"
- Stance: Balanced hedges + strong boosters
- Rhetorical Devices: Questions, imperatives, punchy lines
- Clarity: Precise evaluative language
Mid Scores (40-70%)
- External Evidence: Some citations
- Statistical Evidence: Some data
- Flow Consistency: Logical progression
Low Scores (0-40%)
- Vulnerability Markers: Not confessional
- Sensory Experience: Not scene-based
- Emotional Granularity: Logic over emotion
Must-Have Components (≥80%)
- Perspective - Multiple viewpoints explored thoroughly
- Stance - Clear position with nuance
- Rhetorical Devices - Persuasive craft
High-Weight Components
- Perspective (15x) - The foundation
- Stance (12x) - Your position with nuance
- Rhetorical Devices (10x) - The persuasive tools
- Clarity (8x) - Precision matters
Avoid Zones
Stay UNDER 30% on:
- Vulnerability Markers - Argument isn't confession
- Sensory Experience - Logic over scene
Hallmarks of Excellence
✓ Opposing views are steel-manned (best version stated)
✓ Counter-arguments are addressed directly
✓ Rhetorical questions guide thinking
✓ Tone is firm but fair
✓ Reader can follow the logical chain
Real-World Examples
Opinion Writer
What It Is
Strong stance, clear judgment, unapologetic. You take a side and defend it. Think op-ed columnists who don't hedge—they declare.
The Shape
High Scores (70-100%)
- Stance: More boosters than hedges, confident assertions
- Explicitness: Clear "I think, I argue, personally"
- Clarity: Direct evaluative language
- Polarity: Emotional conviction (positive OR negative)
Mid Scores (40-70%)
- Rhetorical Devices: Some persuasive craft
- Self-Reference: Personal but not vulnerable
- External Evidence: Some support
Low Scores (0-40%)
- Perspective: Not exploring all sides
- Empathy: Not coddling opposing views
- Vulnerability Markers: No confession
Must-Have Components (≥80%)
- Stance - Confident assertions dominate
- Explicitness - Own your position clearly
- Clarity - Make your judgment crystal clear
High-Weight Components
- Stance (15x) - The signature
- Explicitness (12x) - Own it
- Clarity (12x) - No ambiguity
- Polarity (10x) - Emotional conviction
Avoid Zones
Stay UNDER 55% on:
- Perspective - Don't over-explore other sides
Hallmarks of Excellence
✓ Position is stated early and clearly
✓ No excessive hedging ("clearly," "obviously" used)
✓ Judgment is explicit and evaluative
✓ Tone is confident, not apologetic
✓ Reader knows exactly where you stand
Real-World Examples
Satirist
What It Is
Clever, ironic writing that uses story, rhetoric, and humor to critique. You're making a point through exaggeration, irony, or absurdity.
The Shape
High Scores (70-100%)
- Rhetorical Devices: Questions, imperatives, punchy lines
- Polarity: Emotional range for effect
- Anecdotal Complexity: Stories with a twist
- Novelty: Unexpected word choices
Mid Scores (40-70%)
- Pacing Entropy: Rhythmic variation
- Perspective: Implied critique
- Idiomatic Expressions: Colorful language
Low Scores (0-40%)
- Method Transparency: Not instructional
- Statistical Evidence: Not data-heavy
- Vulnerability Markers: Wit over confession
Must-Have Components (≥80%)
- Rhetorical Devices - Craft is essential
- Polarity - Emotional range for punch
- Anecdotal Complexity - Stories with ironic twist
High-Weight Components
- Anecdotal Complexity (12x) - Stories drive satire
- Rhetorical Devices (12x) - The delivery mechanism
- Polarity (12x) - Emotional punch
- Novelty (8x) - Unexpected language
Avoid Zones
Stay UNDER 30% on:
- Method Transparency - Satire isn't tutorial
- Statistical Evidence - Wit over data
Hallmarks of Excellence
✓ Point is made through exaggeration or irony
✓ Humor has an edge (not just jokes)
✓ Reader laughs AND thinks
✓ Critique is implied, not stated
✓ Tone walks the line between playful and cutting
Real-World Examples
Critical Analyst
What It Is
Evaluative, evidence-backed assessment that's fair but rigorous. You're judging quality/merit/effectiveness with documented reasoning.
The Shape
High Scores (70-100%)
- Clarity: Precise evaluative language
- Perspective: Balanced consideration of angles
- Limitation Awareness: Trade-offs and boundaries stated
- External Evidence: Citations present
- Statistical Evidence: Data supports claims
Mid Scores (40-70%)
- Stance: Some hedges and boosters
- Flow Consistency: Logical progression
- Skimmability: Structured clearly
Low Scores (0-40%)
- Self-Reference: Minimal personal presence
- Vulnerability Markers: Not confessional
- Sensory Experience: Not scene-based
Must-Have Components (≥80%)
- Clarity - Precise evaluative language
- Limitation Awareness - Trade-offs explicitly stated
- External Evidence - Claims are supported
High-Weight Components
- Clarity (12x) - Precision is everything
- Perspective (10x) - Balanced angles
- Limitation Awareness (10x) - Honest boundaries
- External Evidence (8x) - Verifiable support
- Statistical Evidence (8x) - Quantitative backing
Avoid Zones
Stay UNDER 40% on:
- Self-Reference - It's about the subject, not you
- Vulnerability Markers - Analysis isn't confession
Hallmarks of Excellence
✓ Evaluation is rigorous but fair
✓ Trade-offs are made explicit
✓ Claims are backed by evidence
✓ Both strengths and weaknesses shown
✓ Reader trusts your judgment
Real-World Examples
How-To Article
What It Is
Clear steps from A to B. Practical, scannable guidance focused on helping readers accomplish something specific.
The Shape
High Scores (70-100%)
- Advice Strength: Clear imperatives and directives
- Method Transparency: Steps, process, criteria visible
- Skimmability: Headers, lists, structure
- Flow Consistency: Logical progression
Mid Scores (40-70%)
- Clarity: Direct language
- Voice of Experience: Some "I did this" elements
- Anecdotal Complexity: Examples to illustrate
Low Scores (0-40%)
- Vulnerability Markers: Not confessional
- Emotional Granularity: Task over feelings
- External Evidence: Light on citations
Must-Have Components (≥80%)- Advice Strength - Clear "do this" directives
- Method Transparency - Steps are explicit
- Skimmability - Easy to scan and follow
High-Weight Components- Skimmability (15x) - Structure is king
- Advice Strength (15x) - Clear directives
- Method Transparency (12x) - Transparent process
- Flow Consistency (12x) - Logical order
Avoid Zones
Stay UNDER 30% on:
- Vulnerability Markers - Not about your feelings
- Emotional Granularity - Task-focused
Hallmarks of Excellence
✓ Steps are numbered or clearly sequenced
✓ Each step is actionable and specific
✓ Reader can follow without guessing
✓ Headers make scanning easy
✓ Examples clarify complex steps
Real-World Examples
Instructional Guide
What It Is
Systematic, structured documentation with low personality. Think technical docs, onboarding guides, or reference manuals.
The Shape
High Scores (70-100%)
- Method Transparency: Every detail visible
- Skimmability: Heavy structure (headers, lists, tables)
- Flow Consistency: Predictable, stable difficulty
- Lexical Rhythm: Steady, breathable pace
Mid Scores (40-70%)
- Advice Strength: Clear but not forceful
- Clarity: Precise language
- External Evidence: References where needed
Low Scores (0-40%)
- Self-Reference: Minimal personal presence
- Vulnerability Markers: No emotion
- Emotional Granularity: No feelings
- Idiomatic Expressions: No color
Must-Have Components (≥80%)
- Method Transparency - Complete procedural detail
- Skimmability - Maximum structure
- Flow Consistency - Stable cognitive load
High-Weight Components
- Skimmability (20x) - Structure dominates
- Flow Consistency (18x) - Predictability is key
- Method Transparency (18x) - Complete transparency
- Advice Strength (10x) - Clear guidance
Avoid Zones
Stay UNDER 35% on:
- Self-Reference - This isn't about you
- Vulnerability Markers - No personality
- Emotional Granularity - No emotion
Hallmarks of Excellence
✓ Zero ambiguity in steps
✓ Headers make everything scannable
✓ Difficulty stays consistent
✓ Can be used as reference (not just read once)
✓ No personality distracts from information
Real-World Examples
Research Document
What It Is
Academic, rigorous, citation-heavy writing designed for peer review or scholarly consumption. Evidence and method are paramount.
The Shape
High Scores (70-100%)
- External Evidence: Heavy citations
- Method Transparency: Detailed methodology
- Authority Signals: Credentials, institutions, standards
- Statistical Evidence: Data with context
Mid Scores (40-70%)
- Limitation Awareness: Scope and boundaries clear
- Flow Consistency: Logical progression
- Skimmability: Structured with headers
Low Scores (0-40%)
- Self-Reference: Minimal "I"
- Vulnerability Markers: No emotion
- Emotional Granularity: No feelings
- Idiomatic Expressions: Formal language only
Must-Have Components (≥80%)
- External Evidence - Rich citations
- Method Transparency - Methodology explicit
- Authority Signals - Credentials matter
High-Weight Components
- External Evidence (18x) - Citations are core
- Method Transparency (15x) - Method is visible
- Authority Signals (12x) - Credentials establish trust
- Statistical Evidence (10x) - Data with rigor
Avoid Zones
Stay UNDER 25% on:
- Self-Reference - Rarely "I"
- Vulnerability Markers - No confession
- Emotional Granularity - No emotion
- Idiomatic Expressions - Formal only
Hallmarks of Excellence
✓ Every claim is cited or proven
✓ Methodology is fully transparent
✓ Limitations are explicitly stated
✓ Peer-reviewable rigor throughout
✓ Credentials establish authority
Real-World Examples
Business Analysis
What It Is
Data-driven, strategic evaluation where numbers tell the story. Think earnings reports, market analysis, or competitive assessments.
The Shape
High Scores (70-100%)
- Statistical Evidence: Metrics with context
- Clarity: Precise evaluative language
- Flow Consistency: Logical progression
- External Evidence: Industry sources
- Skimmability: Charts, tables, structure
Mid Scores (40-70%)
- Perspective: Some angle consideration
- Authority Signals: Industry credentials
- Method Transparency: Some methodology
Low Scores (0-40%)
- Self-Reference - Minimal personal presence
- Vulnerability Markers - No emotion
- Dialogue Presence - No quoted speech
Must-Have Components (≥80%)
- Statistical Evidence - Quantitative backbone
- Clarity - Precise language
- Flow Consistency - Logical structure
High-Weight Components
- Statistical Evidence (15x) - Numbers lead
- Clarity (10x) - Precision matters
- Flow Consistency (12x) - Logic is key
- Skimmability (10x) - Charts and structure
Avoid Zones
Stay UNDER 35% on:
- Self-Reference - About the data, not you
- Vulnerability Markers - Professional tone
- Dialogue Presence - Quotes minimal
Hallmarks of Excellence
✓ Metrics have clear context (timeframe, baseline)
✓ Comparisons are rigorous
✓ Charts/tables enhance understanding
✓ Conclusions follow from data
✓ Strategic implications are clear
Real-World Examples
Case Study
What It Is
Evidence-based narrative that shows real-world application of a method or principle. Story + rigor combined.
The Shape
High Scores (70-100%)
- Method Transparency: Process is visible
- Anecdotal Complexity: Rich narrative structure
- Statistical Evidence: Results with data
- External Evidence: Some citations
Mid Scores (40-70%)
- Clarity: Clear language
- Voice of Experience: Some first-hand elements
- Flow Consistency: Logical progression
- Skimmability: Structured
Low Scores (0-40%)
- Vulnerability Markers - Professional, not confessional
- Emotional Granularity - Results over feelings
Must-Have Components (≥80%)
- Method Transparency - Process is explicit
- Anecdotal Complexity - Story has structure
- Statistical Evidence - Results are quantified
High-Weight Components
- Method Transparency (12x) - How it was done
- Anecdotal Complexity (10x) - The story spine
- Statistical Evidence (10x) - Results matter
- External Evidence (7x) - Context provided
Avoid Zones
Stay UNDER 35% on:
- Vulnerability Markers - Professional tone
Hallmarks of Excellence
✓ Clear setup → intervention → results
✓ Method is replicable
✓ Results are quantified with context
✓ Limitations are acknowledged
✓ Reader can apply lessons elsewhere
Real-World Examples
Product Review
What It Is
Evaluative, sensory, first-hand testing. "I used it, here's what I found." Think Wirecutter or tech reviews.
The Shape
High Scores (70-100%)
- Clarity: Clear evaluative language
- Voice of Experience: "I tested this"
- Sensory Experience: How it feels/looks/sounds
- Self-Reference: Personal testing experience
Mid Scores (40-70%)
- Anecdotal Complexity: Testing scenarios
- Polarity: Emotional reactions
- Skimmability: Pros/cons structure
Low Scores (0-40%)
- External Evidence - Limited citations
- Statistical Evidence - Minimal data
- Method Transparency - Casual testing
Must-Have Components (≥80%)
- Clarity - Clear evaluation
- Voice of Experience - First-hand testing
- Sensory Experience - Vivid details
High-Weight Components
- Clarity (12x) - Judgment is clear
- Voice of Experience (12x) - Tested personally
- Sensory Experience (12x) - Tangible details
- Self-Reference (8x) - Personal lens
Avoid Zones
Stay UNDER 40% on:
- External Evidence - Your experience matters more
- Statistical Evidence - Not lab-tested
Hallmarks of Excellence
✓ Clear verdict (buy, skip, or wait)
✓ Sensory details (how it feels, sounds, looks)
✓ Real use cases tested
✓ Comparisons to alternatives
✓ Reader knows what to expect
Real-World Examples
News Article
What It Is
Factual, structured reporting on who/what/when/where/why without opinion. Inverted pyramid style with citations.
The Shape
High Scores (70-100%)
- External Evidence: Multiple sources quoted
- Authority Signals: Credentials cited
- Flow Consistency: Logical structure
- Skimmability: Clear structure
Mid Scores (40-70%)
- Perspective: Multiple viewpoints
- Clarity: Clear language
- Anecdotal Complexity: Contextual stories
Low Scores (0-40%)
- Self-Reference - Reporter is invisible
- Vulnerability Markers - No emotion
- Emotional Granularity - Factual tone
- Explicitness - No "I think"
Must-Have Components (≥80%)
- External Evidence - Multiple sources
- Authority Signals - Credentials matter
- Flow Consistency - Structured clearly
High-Weight Components
- External Evidence (15x) - Source-driven
- Authority Signals (12x) - Credibility crucial
- Flow Consistency (15x) - Clear structure
- Skimmability (12x) - Scannable format
Avoid Zones
Stay UNDER 25% on:
- Self-Reference - Reporter is invisible
- Vulnerability Markers - No personal emotion
- Emotional Granularity - Factual
- Explicitness - No opinion
Hallmarks of Excellence
✓ Key facts in opening paragraph
✓ Multiple sources quoted
✓ No reporter opinion
✓ Credentials establish authority
✓ Inverted pyramid (most important first)
Real-World Examples
Interview
What It Is
Dialogue-driven piece where Q&A format brings out insight. Multi-voice conversation creates the value.
The Shape
High Scores (70-100%)
- Dialogue Presence: Extensive quoted speech
- Anecdotal Complexity: Stories emerge through conversation
- Voice of Experience: Subject shares first-hand wisdom
Mid Scores (40-70%)
- Emotional Granularity: Feelings surface
- Perspective: Multiple angles through dialogue
- Self-Reference: Subject uses "I"
Low Scores (0-40%)
- Method Transparency - Conversational, not instructional
- Statistical Evidence - Dialogue over data
- External Evidence - Subject is the source
Must-Have Components (≥80%)
- Dialogue Presence - Extensive Q&A
- Anecdotal Complexity - Stories told
High-Weight Components
- Dialogue Presence (20x) - The core format
- Anecdotal Complexity (15x) - Stories emerge
- Voice of Experience (8x) - Subject expertise
- Emotional Granularity (8x) - Feelings surface
Avoid Zones
Stay UNDER 35% on:
- Method Transparency - Not instructional
- Statistical Evidence - Conversation over data
Hallmarks of Excellence
✓ Questions draw out insight
✓ Subject's voice comes through
✓ Stories emerge naturally
✓ Q&A format is clear
✓ Reader learns through conversation
Real-World Examples
Inspirational Post
What It Is
Uplifting, emotionally resonant writing with actionable hope. "You can do this" energy backed by genuine emotion.
The Shape
High Scores (70-100%)
- Emotional Granularity: Specific feeling words
- Polarity: Emotional range (struggle → triumph)
- Advice Strength: Clear encouragement and calls-to-action
- Empathy: Acknowledgment of reader's situation
Mid Scores (40-70%)
- Anecdotal Complexity: Inspirational stories
- Rhetorical Devices: Motivational craft
- Self-Reference: Relatable presence
Low Scores (0-40%)
- External Evidence - Emotion over citations
- Statistical Evidence - Heart over data
- Method Transparency - Motivational, not instructional
Must-Have Components (≥80%)
- Emotional Granularity - Name specific feelings
- Polarity - Emotional journey
- Advice Strength - Clear encouragement
High-Weight Components
- Emotional Granularity (15x) - Emotion is core
- Anecdotal Complexity (10x) - Inspirational stories
- Advice Strength (10x) - Actionable hope
- Polarity (10x) - Emotional arc
Avoid Zones
Stay UNDER 35% on:
- External Evidence - From the heart, not studies
- Statistical Evidence - Emotion over data
- Method Transparency - Not a system
Hallmarks of Excellence
✓ Reader feels seen and understood
✓ Emotion is genuine, not manipulative
✓ Clear "you can do this" moments
✓ Specific encouragement, not platitudes
✓ Leaves reader energized
Real-World Examples
How to Choose Your Archetype
Start with your goal:
- Sharing your experience? → Personal Blogger, Personal Essayist, or Storyteller
- Teaching from experience? → Mentor/Guide or How-To Article
- Making an argument? → Debater or Opinion Writer
- Synthesizing ideas? → Thought Leader
- Evaluating something? → Critical Analyst or Product Review
- Documenting a method? → Case Study or Instructional Guide
- Reporting facts? → News Article
- Motivating readers? → Inspirational Post
Then check the discriminators:
- Look at the "Must-Have Components" for your target archetype
- Can you hit ≥80% on all three?
- Are you comfortable with the "Avoid Zones"?
- Does the high-weight component list match what you're naturally good at?
Finally, study the examples:
- Read 2-3 examples from your target archetype
- Notice the patterns in structure, tone, and approach
- Identify what makes them work within that archetype
Final Notes
Remember: These archetypes are descriptive patterns, not prescriptive rules. The scoring system identifies what already exists in your writing—it doesn't dictate what you should write.
The best use: Write naturally, then analyze to see which archetype you're closest to. Use that insight to strengthen your natural pattern rather than forcing yourself into a foreign shape.
Cross-archetype writing: Some pieces blend archetypes (e.g., Thought Leader + Personal Essayist). That's fine—the system will identify your two primary archetypes and score accordingly.
Penfriend helps ambitious teams turn their content into an asset for long term growth.
contact
Come say hi
Email: hello@penfriend.ai
Product: support@penfriend.ai
FREE MINI COURSE - How to write exactly what your customers wish you would
Penfriend