edit-article

Edit and improve articles by restructuring sections, improving clarity, and tightening prose. Use when user wants to edit, revise, or improve an article draft.

Quality

59%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.cursor/skills/edit-article/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

42%Scale 1-3

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

This skill provides a minimal skeleton for article editing but lacks the actionable detail needed to guide Claude effectively. The workflow has a useful user-confirmation checkpoint but the rewriting instructions are too vague — there are no examples of good vs. bad prose, no specific editing techniques, and no verification step for the final output. The conciseness is acceptable but the low actionability significantly limits the skill's usefulness.

Suggestions

Add concrete before/after examples showing what 'improve clarity, coherence, and flow' looks like in practice (e.g., a verbose paragraph rewritten concisely).

Include specific editing techniques or a checklist (e.g., eliminate passive voice, remove filler words, ensure topic sentences lead each paragraph).

Add a validation/review step after rewriting — e.g., 'Present the revised section to the user for feedback before proceeding to the next section.'

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Reasonably brief but includes some unnecessary phrasing like 'Think about the main points you want to make' and the DAG metaphor, which Claude already understands. Could be tighter.	2 / 3
Actionability	Very vague guidance — 'improve clarity, coherence, and flow' is abstract with no concrete examples of before/after edits, no specific techniques, and no executable steps. The 240-character paragraph limit is the only concrete detail.	1 / 3
Workflow Clarity	There is a basic two-step sequence (divide into sections, then rewrite each), and it includes a user confirmation checkpoint after step 1. However, there's no validation of the output, no feedback loop for revisions, and step 2 is underspecified.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	This is a very short, simple skill with no need for external references or multi-file structure. The content is organized into clear numbered steps, which is appropriate for its scope.	3 / 3
	Total	8 / 12 Passed

Description

77%Scale 1-3

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 is a solid description that clearly communicates both what the skill does and when to use it, with specific editing actions listed. Its main weaknesses are limited trigger term coverage (missing synonyms like 'rewrite', 'polish', 'blog post') and moderate overlap risk with other writing or editing skills.

Suggestions

Expand trigger terms to include common variations like 'rewrite', 'polish', 'refine', 'blog post', 'essay', or 'writing improvement'.

Add distinguishing details about the type or scope of editing (e.g., 'long-form articles', 'content pieces') to reduce conflict risk with general proofreading or copyediting skills.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'restructuring sections', 'improving clarity', and 'tightening prose'. These are distinct, actionable editing tasks.	3 / 3
Completeness	Clearly answers both 'what' (restructuring sections, improving clarity, tightening prose) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when user wants to edit, revise, or improve an article draft').	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes natural terms like 'edit', 'revise', 'improve', and 'article draft', but misses common variations users might say such as 'rewrite', 'polish', 'refine', 'blog post', 'essay', or 'writing'.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Focuses on article editing which is somewhat specific, but could overlap with general writing/editing skills, proofreading skills, or content creation skills. The term 'article' helps narrow scope but 'improve' and 'edit' are broad.	2 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 Passed

Validation

100%

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 — 11 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: SnowingFox/ai-skills
Path: .cursor/skills/edit-article/SKILL.md
Commit: d6882ad

Reviewed: ~14 hours 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.