CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

article-rewriter

给定一篇文章的 URL 或全文内容,深度阅读消化后,以更高屋建瓴的视角创作一篇全新文章: 提取核心观点+基石假设,找逻辑漏洞或用第一性原理重构假设,续写新内容,最终输出图文并茂的 Markdown 文章。 触发条件:用户提供文章链接或粘贴文章内容,并说"帮我改写"、"写一篇更高层次的文章"、"找逻辑漏洞"、 "重构观点"、"消化后重写"、"升华这篇文章"、"基于这篇文章写一篇新的",或用户说"这篇文章有什么问题/ 漏洞/不足"并希望输出新文章时,必须使用本 skill。即使用户只说"帮我把这篇文章写得更好"或"这篇文章太 浅了,帮我深化一下",也应使用本 skill。

68

Quality

83%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

75%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 body is a well-structured, actionable instruction skill: a clear 7-step workflow with named tools, concrete templates, a禁用词 list, chart rules, file output conventions, and a closing self-check checklist. It is held back from the top band mainly by mild redundancy between Step 4 and the output example, placeholder chart examples, and implicit inter-step validation.

Suggestions

Collapse the 输出示例结构 section into Step 4 or reference it once, to remove the skeleton duplication and tighten conciseness.

Add one short worked example (e.g., a filled 观点/基石假设/脆弱点 block or a real Mermaid snippet) to lift actionability from concrete-but-placeholder to copy-paste ready.

Insert an explicit validation gate after Step 2 or Step 3 (e.g., "确认已找到 1-2 个最有破局价值的观点后再进入 Step 3") to make inter-step checkpoints explicit rather than only end-of-flow.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and prescriptive without lecturing Claude on concepts it already knows (no "what is first-principles reasoning" filler); the main redundancy is the 输出示例结构 re-stating the Step 4 skeleton, which is a minor trim opportunity rather than pervasive padding.

4 / 5

Actionability

Concrete executable guidance throughout — named tools (web_fetch, web_search, present_files), a structured extraction template, a specific 禁用词 list, chart-type rules, `mkdir -p markdown`, and a file-naming pattern — with only minor gaps such as placeholder Mermaid/SVG blocks rather than worked examples.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clearly sequenced 7-step process culminating in a 质量自检清单 that acts as a verify-and-fix validation checkpoint; intermediate validation gates between steps are implicit rather than explicit, keeping it just below the top anchor.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist, so the skill is self-contained; sections (定位, 执行流程, 质量自检清单, 输出示例结构, 注意事项) are well-organized with clear headers and easy navigation, though it exceeds 50 lines so the simple-skill 5-anchor does not fully apply.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

91%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.

A strong description: it states concrete capabilities and provides an explicit, richly enumerated trigger-conditions clause with natural user phrasing. The only soft spot is specificity, where a couple of sub-actions could be sharper, but it clearly clears the bar for high-quality trigger guidance.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain and several concrete actions — "提取核心观点+基石假设", "找逻辑漏洞", "第一性原理重构假设", "续写新内容", "输出图文并茂的 Markdown 文章" — which is more than 1-2 actions with only minor coverage gaps, falling just short of fully comprehensive.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both "what" (deep-read then create a new higher-level article via extraction/flaw-finding/reconstruction) and "when" (an explicit 触发条件 clause with concrete user phrases), matching the anchor for clearly and explicitly answering both.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Comprehensive coverage of natural trigger phrases users would actually say — "帮我改写", "写一篇更高层次的文章", "找逻辑漏洞", "升华这篇文章", "这篇文章太浅了帮我深化一下" — including synonyms and colloquial variations.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The first-principles-rewrite / elevate-and-reconstruct niche is mostly distinct from generic writing or summarizing skills, with only minor overlap risk against closely related writing helpers.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

20

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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
digoal/blog
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.