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.
68
26%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
98%
1.44xAverage score across 6 eval scenarios
Advisory
Suggest reviewing before use
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./plugins/all-skills/skills/content-research-writer/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
25%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 lists several writing-related actions but remains too broad and generic to effectively distinguish this skill from other writing or editing skills. It lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause, uses second person ('your writing process'), and includes marketing fluff ('Transforms your writing process from solo effort to collaborative partnership') that adds no selection value.
Suggestions
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with concrete trigger scenarios, e.g., 'Use when the user asks for help drafting articles, blog posts, essays, or long-form content with citations.'
Remove the marketing fluff sentence ('Transforms your writing process from solo effort to collaborative partnership') and replace it with specific content types or formats this skill handles (e.g., 'blog posts, articles, reports, essays').
Switch from second person ('your writing process') to third person voice (e.g., 'Assists in writing high-quality content by...') and add natural user trigger terms like 'draft,' 'article,' 'blog post,' 'edit,' 'proofread.'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names several actions like 'conducting research, adding citations, improving hooks, iterating on outlines, and providing real-time feedback,' but these are somewhat generic writing-assistance actions rather than highly concrete, tool-specific capabilities. The last sentence ('Transforms your writing process...') is vague marketing fluff. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Describes what the skill does but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill. Per the rubric, a missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 2, and the 'when' is not even implied clearly, warranting a score closer to 1. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes some relevant keywords like 'research,' 'citations,' 'hooks,' 'outlines,' and 'writing,' but misses common user trigger terms like 'essay,' 'article,' 'blog post,' 'draft,' 'edit,' or 'proofread.' The terms present are moderately useful but not comprehensive. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The description is very broad—'writing high-quality content' with 'research' and 'feedback' could overlap with virtually any writing, editing, research, or content creation skill. There is no clear niche or distinct trigger to differentiate it. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 6 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
27%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is excessively verbose, containing extensive template structures and explanatory content that Claude already understands (how to give writing feedback, what citations look like, how to structure an outline). The content reads more like a tutorial for a human user than efficient instructions for Claude. While it covers many aspects of writing assistance, the lack of conciseness, missing tool-use specifics, and monolithic structure significantly reduce its effectiveness as a skill file.
Suggestions
Cut content by 60-70%: Remove all template structures Claude already knows how to produce (feedback templates, outline templates, citation formats) and focus only on project-specific conventions or non-obvious patterns.
Add concrete tool-use instructions: Specify which tools to use for research (web_search, file read/write), how to save drafts, and how to manage the writing project files programmatically.
Split into multiple files: Move detailed templates to a TEMPLATES.md, research workflow to RESEARCH.md, and examples to EXAMPLES.md, keeping SKILL.md as a concise overview with clear references.
Add validation checkpoints: Include explicit verification steps like 'verify all citations have real sources before presenting research' and 'confirm voice match with user before proceeding to next section.'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely verbose at ~400+ lines. Explains obvious concepts Claude already knows (what a hook is, how to give feedback, what citations are). Template structures like the outline template, feedback template, and review template are padded with placeholder text that adds little value. The 'When to Use This Skill' and 'What This Skill Does' sections are redundant with the actual instructions. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides structured templates and example prompts, but most guidance is abstract process description rather than executable commands. The 'research' examples show fabricated citations rather than demonstrating how to actually use tools (web search, file operations). The mkdir/touch commands are concrete but trivial. Most content describes what to do conceptually rather than providing specific tool-use patterns. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Multiple workflows are listed (blog post, newsletter, tutorial, thought leadership) with numbered steps, but they lack validation checkpoints or feedback loops. The basic workflow in 'How to Use' is clear but the detailed instructions section is more of a reference catalog than a sequenced workflow. No verification steps for research accuracy or citation validity despite research being a core function. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Monolithic wall of text with everything inline. Despite recommending a file organization structure with separate files (outline.md, research.md, feedback.md), the skill itself dumps all templates, examples, workflows, best practices, and pro tips into a single massive document. No references to external files for detailed templates or examples that could be split out. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 6 / 12 Passed |
Validation
81%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 9 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
skill_md_line_count | SKILL.md is long (540 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking | Warning |
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 9 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- davepoon/buildwithclaude
- Commit
7cc63f3
- 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.