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。

73

Quality

90%

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

81%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.

A strong, well-structured instruction skill: the 7-step workflow is clearly sequenced and backed by a validation checklist with remediation steps, and the guidance (tools, naming, banned words, output format) is largely executable. The main weaknesses are mild token duplication between Step 4 and the output-example section, and the absence of a concrete chart example for the most fragile step.

Suggestions

Merge the "输出示例结构" section into Step 4's article skeleton (or replace the skeleton with it) — they describe the same structure twice and cost tokens without adding guidance.

Add one minimal copy-paste example for the chart requirements (e.g., a 3-line mermaid flowchart snippet and a small text-annotated SVG stub) so the 'at least 2 figures' rule is executable rather than aspirational.

Move the banned-word list and the quality self-check checklist into a references/ file (e.g., STYLE.md and CHECKLIST.md) linked from the body, shortening SKILL.md and giving the bundle proper progressive disclosure.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is efficient — it never explains background concepts Claude already knows, and instructions like the viewpoint template and banned-word list are dense with unique value. Minor trimmable padding: the "输出示例结构" section largely duplicates the Step-4 article skeleton, and a few flourishes ("制造认知张力") could be tightened. Not 5 because of that duplication; not 3 because there is no genuinely unnecessary explanation.

4 / 5

Actionability

Concrete throughout: named tools (web_fetch, web_search, present_files), exact commands (`mkdir -p markdown`), a file-naming pattern with date placeholder, YAML frontmatter spec, a template for viewpoint analysis, and a hard banned-word list. Not 5 because the chart requirements ("SVG 简图(用文字标注数据)" and the Mermaid specs) give no copy-paste-ready example, leaving the most fragile step underspecified; not 3 because most guidance is directly executable.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clearly sequenced 7-step process (fetch → extract assumptions → find flaws / reconstruct → build skeleton → search data → write → output file) capped by an explicit "质量自检清单" with per-item remediation (删除/替换/补充/优化), which is a real validate-and-fix feedback loop. This matches anchor 5's 'explicit validation steps, feedback loops, checklists'; no destructive/batch-operation cap applies.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist, so everything must live in SKILL.md; the single file is well-organized with clear section headers and navigable structure. It sits between anchor 4 (good structure, content appropriately placed) and anchor 5 (which presumes well-signaled one-level-deep references / genuinely split content); the ~155-line body and the inline banned-word list and output-example section could arguably live in reference files, so 4 rather than 5.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

100%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 exemplary: it states what the skill does with concrete actions, and dedicates an explicit trigger-conditions section with a rich set of natural user phrasings and input variants. Voice is third-person and impersonal, with no fluff or over-claims.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — "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" — covering the full capability surface (extract, critique/reconstruct, write, format-output). Anchor 5 matches; not 4 because there is no notable coverage gap, and the actions are specific rather than generic.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both questions: the "what" in the opening clause (deep-read an article and create a new, higher-level article) and an explicit "触发条件" clause enumerating concrete user phrases, including edge cases ("这篇文章有什么问题/漏洞/不足" with intent to output a new article). Clear anchor-5 match.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Comprehensive 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"、"重构观点"、"消化后重写"、"升华这篇文章"、"这篇文章太浅了,帮我深化一下", plus input forms (URL vs pasted text). This matches the anchor-5 pattern of synonyms plus variations; below-5 anchors lack this breadth.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche (article digestion → elevated rewrite) with distinct, article-scoped triggers; the requirement of a source article (URL or pasted text) keeps it from colliding with generic writing or editing skills. Minor theoretical overlap does not rise above anchor 5's 'minimal conflict risk'.

5 / 5

Total

20

/

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.

Validation — 16 / 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.