ct-writer
Use this skill for ANY crypto/tech content creation: tweets, threads, articles, quote tweets, short posts, long-form pieces, or any written content for X/Twitter. Trigger when the user mentions writing, drafting, creating content, tweets, threads, posts, articles, or anything related to content for X/Twitter or crypto/tech commentary. Also trigger when the user asks to review, edit, or improve existing content. Every piece of content goes through the same quality system. If the user says "write me a tweet" or "draft a thread" or "help me with a post" -- use this skill.
87
83%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
82%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This description excels at trigger term coverage and completeness with explicit 'Trigger when' guidance and example phrases. However, it lacks specificity about concrete capabilities (what quality system? what specific actions?) and the overly broad scope ('ANY crypto/tech content') creates potential conflict risk with other writing-related skills.
Suggestions
Add specific concrete actions beyond generic 'creation' - e.g., 'Structures viral threads, optimizes hook lines, applies crypto-native voice and terminology'
Narrow the scope or add distinguishing capabilities to reduce conflict with general writing skills - what makes this crypto/tech content skill different from a general content writing skill?
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (crypto/tech content) and lists content types (tweets, threads, articles, quote tweets), but lacks concrete actions beyond generic 'creation' and 'review, edit, or improve'. Does not describe specific capabilities like 'analyze engagement', 'optimize hashtags', or 'structure threads'. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what (crypto/tech content creation for various formats) and when (explicit 'Trigger when...' clause with multiple scenarios including writing, drafting, reviewing, editing). Includes concrete example triggers at the end. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Excellent coverage of natural terms users would say: 'write me a tweet', 'draft a thread', 'help me with a post', 'tweets', 'threads', 'articles', 'X/Twitter', 'crypto/tech'. Includes both formal terms and casual user language. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The crypto/tech niche provides some distinction, but 'content creation' and 'writing' are very broad triggers that could conflict with general writing skills. The phrase 'ANY crypto/tech content creation' is overly expansive and could cause false positives. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured skill with excellent workflow clarity and progressive disclosure. The 7-step process with explicit quality gates and the clear routing tables make it highly actionable. Minor inefficiency from some redundancy between inline rules and referenced files, but overall a strong skill that respects Claude's intelligence while providing concrete, executable guidance.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is reasonably efficient but includes some redundancy - the 'WHAT NEVER APPEARS' section overlaps significantly with the referenced slop-rules.md, and some principles are restated across sections. The voice principles and philosophy sections could be tighter. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Highly actionable with a clear 7-step workflow, specific routing tables for thinking modes and formats, concrete quality thresholds (slop score -5 or better, quality 6/10+), and explicit decision points. The user knows exactly what to do at each step. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Excellent workflow with clear sequencing from understanding request through final presentation. Includes explicit validation checkpoints (Step 6 Quality Gate with auto-revise), feedback loops, and a final 5-question test before output. The 'never show a draft that fails' instruction is a strong guardrail. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Exemplary progressive disclosure - the skill opens with a numbered list of 7 reference files to read, each clearly labeled by purpose. Core content stays in SKILL.md while detailed rules, examples, and voice profiles are appropriately externalized to reference files. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Validation
100%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- Repository
- KEYURBODAR/ct-writer-v1
- Commit
4c19ac0
- Reviewed
Table of Contents
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.