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.

Quality

63%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./bundled/skills/content-research-writer/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

77%

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

The body is well-structured and actionable with concrete examples and a clear, checkpointed writing workflow, but it is verbose and monolithic with no progressive disclosure to separate reference material. Trimming and splitting content into referenced files would materially improve it.

Suggestions

Move the large template blocks (outline, feedback, final-review) and the Examples into separate reference files (e.g., templates.md, examples.md) and link to them from SKILL.md to enable progressive disclosure.

Consolidate the redundant Workflows, Best Practices, Pro Tips, and Related Use Cases sections, cutting placeholder scaffolding to reduce the body well below its current length.

Keep the concrete filled examples (hook rewrites, section feedback) inline as they carry the actionability, but trim the bracketed-placeholder templates to the essential structure.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	At ~530 lines the body is padded with overlapping placeholder template blocks and redundant sections (Instructions templates, Examples, Workflows, Best Practices, Pro Tips), though it does not explain concepts Claude already knows. It could be tightened considerably without losing clarity.	2 / 3
Actionability	It provides copy-paste-ready prompts ('Help me create an outline for an article about [topic]') and concrete filled examples (the hook rewrites in Example 3, the section feedback in Example 4), giving specific, actionable guidance for an instruction-only skill.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The 8-step Instructions sequence, the section-by-section feedback loop, and the Pre-Publish Checklist give a clear, checkpointed workflow; writing is not a destructive or batch operation, so the missing-explicit-validation cap does not apply.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	No bundle files exist and the entire skill is a single monolithic file; it is well-sectioned, but templates, examples, and workflows that could be split into references are all inline with no external navigation.	2 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 Passed

Description

50%

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 names concrete capabilities but is held back by second-person voice, missing explicit 'Use when' trigger guidance, and broad framing that invites overlap with other writing skills. It is competent but not exemplary.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause listing content types users naturally mention (blog posts, articles, newsletters, tutorials, case studies) to raise completeness and trigger-term coverage to 3.

Rephrase 'Transforms your writing process from solo effort to collaborative partnership' into third person (e.g., 'Transforms the writing process from solo effort to collaborative partnership') to avoid the second-person specificity penalty.

Tighten the niche signal by leading with the distinctive research-and-citation workflow rather than the generic 'writing high-quality content' framing.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description lists several concrete actions ('conducting research, adding citations, improving hooks, iterating on outlines, and providing real-time feedback on each section'), which would warrant a 3, but the second-person phrasing 'Transforms your writing process' incurs the rubric's voice penalty of -1.	2 / 3
Completeness	The 'what' is clearly stated, but there is no explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, so completeness is capped at 2 per the judging guidelines.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	It includes natural terms a writer might say (research, citations, hooks, outlines, feedback), but misses common content-type variations users actually invoke (blog posts, articles, newsletters, tutorials).	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The research-plus-citation-plus-hook combination marks a niche, but 'writing high-quality content' is broad and could overlap with general writing-assistance skills.	2 / 3
	Total	8 / 12 Passed

Validation

93%

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 — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
skill_md_line_count	SKILL.md is long (539 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: foryourhealth111-pixel/Vibe-Skills
Path: bundled/skills/content-research-writer/SKILL.md
Commit: f627ab5

Reviewed: about 8 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.