Haiku Template 1
Observation-first haiku Moment: [specific thing happening] Concrete detail 1: [x] Concrete detail 2: [x] Turn/contrast: [x] Line 1: [image] Line 2: [development] Line 3: [turn/resonance]
Start with structure, then replace every placeholder with information that is true, relevant, and natural for your context. These templates are intentionally skeletal so your final writing does not sound mass-produced.
A strong haiku notices something concrete, avoids explaining the emotion for the reader, and creates resonance through juxtaposition, a turn, seasonal context, or a precise sensory detail. When an assignment requires 5–7–5, the syllable pattern should still serve the observed moment instead of producing filler words.
Observation-first haiku Moment: [specific thing happening] Concrete detail 1: [x] Concrete detail 2: [x] Turn/contrast: [x] Line 1: [image] Line 2: [development] Line 3: [turn/resonance]
5–7–5 classroom template Line 1 — 5 syllables: [x] Line 2 — 7 syllables: [x] Line 3 — 5 syllables: [x] Filler words added only for count? [remove/rewrite] Concrete image present? [ ]
Juxtaposition template Image A: [x] Image B: [x] Relationship: [contrast / echo / change / surprise] Do not explain the relationship directly unless clarity requires it.
Seasonal haiku check Season/time cue: [x] Observed action: [x] Sensory detail: [x] Human commentary removed: [ ] Ending leaves room for reader: [ ]
Compression revision Draft: [x] Abstract words: [x] Replace with concrete detail: [x] Unnecessary adjective/adverb: [x] Stronger noun/verb: [x]
Boundary-and-tool-choice audit for Haiku: reader objection → [ ]; actual writing job → [ ]; evidence/genre/format boundary → [ ]; tempting alternative → [ ]; why it is the wrong tool here → [ ]; correct adjustment → [ ]; final verification → [ ].
Evidence/support and mastery ladder for Haiku: minimum acceptable → [ ]; strong → [ ]; expert → [ ]; audience/genre constraint → [ ]; evidence or story support → [ ]; boundary that would require a different technique → [ ].
Certainty and expert-exception audit for Haiku: statement or choice → [ ]; evidence/canon/authority supporting it → [ ]; confidence level → [ ]; uncertainty that must be named → [ ]; expert exception → [ ]; nearest alternative technique → [ ]; why the final choice fits better → [ ].
Purpose-and-verification decision audit for Haiku: real writing job → [ ]; plausible choice A → [ ]; plausible choice B → [ ]; downstream consequence of each → [ ]; facts/evidence/canon to verify → [ ]; reader or genre boundary → [ ]; final purpose-fit reason → [ ].
Publication-readiness audit for Haiku: claim/advice/example → [ ]; strongest available source tier → [ ]; important disagreement or uncertainty → [ ]; what would change the conclusion → [ ]; publish now / qualify / revise / hold → [ ]; final verifier or source of truth → [ ].
Provenance and classification audit for Haiku: draft statement/example → [ ]; classify as fact / interpretation / recommendation / convention / original example → [ ]; source or internal provenance → [ ]; source date / version / checked date → [ ]; attribution needed → [ ]; recency risk → [ ]; final publishable wording → [ ].
Source-record and update audit for Haiku: statement / example → [ ]; external fact, project fact, interpretation, recommendation, convention, or original example → [ ]; controlling first-party / primary source → [ ]; secondary source if used → [ ]; source record / locator → [ ]; date or version checked → [ ]; update trigger → [ ]; publish / qualify / revise / hold → [ ].
Source-ledger and revision-history audit for Haiku: claim / recommendation / example → [ ]; source or project record ID → [ ]; source status active / superseded / corrected / retracted / retired → [ ]; claim-level last verified date/version → [ ]; event that triggered recheck → [ ]; correction / withdrawal action → [ ]; reader-facing disclosure needed? → [ ]; what changed and why → [ ]; prior wording/version retained at → [ ].
Claim/source status audit: Item [claim/source/example] | Status [active / review due / stale / corrected / retracted / superseded] | Controlling source/version [x] | Last verified [date/version] | Stale trigger [x] | Correction severity [0–3] | Reader disclosure [none / note / correction / withdrawal] | Changelog entry [what changed + why].
Dependency and propagation audit: Claim / example / recommendation [x] | Controlling source / project record [x] | Dependency strength [direct / shared / advisory / independent] | Review trigger / reason code [x] | Needs-review scope [local / direct dependents / cluster] | Replacement source requirements [x] | Carry-forward decision [x] | Propagation targets [x] | Reader disclosure / changelog action [x].
Persistent editorial registry audit: Topic slug → [ ]; claim UID/key → [ ]; source UID/key → [ ]; dependency UID + strength → [ ]; source status/version → [ ]; open review UID/reason/priority → [ ]; replacement source if any → [ ]; reviewer + resolution → [ ].