Add §26 and widen §25 to cover copy that describes itself

[jkhereford]

Two tells survive a full pass of the current 25 patterns, because they are a stance toward the reader rather than a word choice or a rhythm.

We hit this on a page that had already been through the skill and was reported clean. A reader then found nine instances by hand and said, plainly, that people do not talk that way. Every one of them was the writer standing beside the reader explaining the document, instead of telling them the thing.

What this changes

§26, new: explaining the document's own conventions. Copy describes its own legend, layout, order or navigation to a reader who can already see it. "The table below compares", "this section is organized by owner", "ratings are out of five, where five is best". Marked weak alone, since a real writer sometimes needs to state a convention.

§25, widened: from the previous version to the document itself. The existing pattern rejects writing about what the text replaced. The same habit produces writing about how the text was assembled or sourced: "generated from", "compiled from", "narrowed down from", "anything unconfirmed is flagged rather than guessed". The heading changes from "Writing about the previous version" to "Writing about the document instead of its subject", and the problem statement draws the line that matters in practice. A source credit the reader can follow stays. A description of your process goes. A caveat stays where it changes what the reader should do and goes where it only reports how carefully you worked.

§20, one added pair. A heading written for effect instead of naming its section, next to the existing title-case and emoji examples. "## The decision, on one screen" becomes "## How the six options compare". This is heading content rather than heading typography, so it sits with the decoration rather than earning its own number.

Why not fold §26 into an existing pattern

Per AGENTS.md I looked for a home first. §24 is closest and does not fit: it covers a heading echoed by the sentence under it, which is repetition, while this is a description of the page's mechanics. §19 and §20 are about decoration applied to real content. §23 covers disclaimers about what the writer could not find, which is adjacent but about sources rather than layout. §25 was the better fit for the method-narration half, which is why that half is a widening and not a new number.

Checks

• python3 scripts/validate-package.py passes at 3.1.0
• SKILL.md is 396 lines, within the 400 limit
• Version synced across SKILL.md, README history and .claude-plugin/plugin.json
• README section title, tables and §references updated
• Examples are generic; nothing traceable to the documents these were found in

[blader]

Thank you. This was a real gap. I folded it into 3.1.0 in #294 with you as co-author: §25 is now "Writing about the document instead of its subject" and includes your method-narration example, and §20 covers headings written for effect. #271 had just taken §26, and explaining a page's own conventions is the same habit as the widened §25, so it went into §25's watch list instead of getting a new number.