content-research-writer

Assists in writing high-quality content by conducting research, adding citations, improving hooks, iterating on outlines, and providing real-time feedback on each section. Transforms your writing process from solo effort to collaborative partnership.

Quality

56%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./content-research-writer/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

48%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The skill offers a clear, well-sequenced collaborative-writing workflow, but it is significantly over-long due to repeated placeholder templates and redundant overlapping sections, and it inlines content that would benefit from separate reference files.

Suggestions

Consolidate the redundant sections (When to Use / Related Use Cases, What This Skill Does / Instructions) and trim the repeated placeholder templates to a single representative example each.

Move the four full Examples and the per-workflow templates into a separate references/ file (e.g. examples.md) and link from SKILL.md to satisfy progressive disclosure.

Replace generic fill-in-the-blank placeholders ('[positive elements]', '[Specific issue] → [Suggested fix]') with one fully worked concrete example so the guidance is actionable rather than scaffolded.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	At ~535 lines the body is noticeably verbose: large placeholder template blocks are repeated across outline/research/hook/feedback/final-review sections, and 'When to Use', 'What This Skill Does', 'Examples', 'Writing Workflows', and 'Related Use Cases' substantially restate the same workflow, matching the 'noticeably verbose; several padded sections' anchor.	2 / 5
Actionability	As an instruction-only skill it provides concrete prompts and a few real worked examples (e.g. the hook rewrites with actual sentences), but the bulk of guidance is fill-in-the-blank placeholders like '[positive elements]' and '[Specific issue] → [Suggested fix]', leaving key details unspecified.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The 8-step Instructions and four numbered workflows give a clear sequence with implicit checkpoints (section-by-section feedback, pre-publish checklist) and feedback loops; it stops short of a 5 because validation checkpoints are implicit rather than explicit 'validate before proceeding' gates.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Section headers are well-organized, but with no bundle files the skill inlines large template/example/workflow blocks that a 535-line skill would typically split into reference files; the under-50-line simple-skill exception does not apply, matching the 'structure present but content that should be separate is inline' anchor.	3 / 5
	Total	12 / 20 Passed

Description

63%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description is specific and action-rich but missing explicit 'when to use' trigger guidance, which caps its completeness. Trigger terms are natural but generic, lacking the concrete format names users would say.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when writing blog posts, articles, newsletters, or case studies that need research and citations.'

Surface concrete format keywords users actually say (blog post, article, newsletter, tutorial, draft) rather than the generic 'content'.

Drop the marketing sentence 'Transforms your writing process from solo effort to collaborative partnership' — it adds no trigger or capability information.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names five concrete actions — 'conducting research, adding citations, improving hooks, iterating on outlines, and providing real-time feedback on each section' — covering the writing lifecycle comprehensively, matching the score-5 anchor.	5 / 5
Completeness	Clearly answers 'what' via the five named actions, but provides no 'Use when...' trigger clause — the closing sentence is a marketing claim, not trigger guidance — so per the missing-trigger cap it cannot exceed 3.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes relevant terms ('writing', 'content', 'citations', 'hooks', 'outlines', 'feedback') but lacks the concrete format variations users actually say ('blog post', 'article', 'newsletter', 'draft'), matching the 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' anchor.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The specific combination of research-plus-citations-plus-hook-and-section-feedback is a fairly niche niche with only minor overlap risk against generic drafting skills, though the broad 'writing content' phrasing keeps it from a 5.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
skill_md_line_count	SKILL.md is long (539 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: ComposioHQ/awesome-claude-skills
Path: content-research-writer/SKILL.md
Commit: be2a406

Reviewed: 3 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.