content-brief-factory

Generate detailed, differentiated content briefs at scale. Each brief includes SERP analysis, competing page breakdown, unique angles from real customer language (reviews, Reddit), internal linking plan, and SERP feature targets. Batch mode produces 10-50 briefs in one run. Crushes generic "keyword density" briefs from tools like Surfer or Clearscope.

Quality

60%

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 ./skills/content/composites/content-brief-factory/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

57%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 detailed, actionable multi-phase workflow with concrete commands and a complete brief template, scoring well on actionability. It loses points for editorial padding, missing validation checkpoints on a batch operation, and inlining large template content that would benefit from separate reference files.

Suggestions

Add an explicit validation/verification step (e.g., 'After generation, verify each brief has all required sections and that SERP/customer-language data is present; regenerate any incomplete briefs before output') to satisfy the batch-operation feedback-loop requirement.

Move the full brief markdown template and batch-output template into a separate reference file (e.g., references/brief-template.md) and link to it from the body to improve progressive disclosure.

Remove the editorial framing ('Most content briefs are garbage', Surfer/Clearscope comparisons) to tighten conciseness.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The workflow is mostly efficient and well-sectioned, but editorial preamble ('Most content briefs are garbage', the 'great brief doesn't just say...' principle, the Surfer/Clearscope dig) is unnecessary padding Claude does not need.	3 / 5
Actionability	Provides concrete, mostly-executable bash commands and a full copy-paste brief template with env vars and a cost table; the SerpAPI example is a raw GET rather than a runnable script, leaving a minor gap.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Phases 0-4 are clearly sequenced with a coverage gate in Phase 1, but this batch operation (10-50 briefs) lacks explicit validation/verification checkpoints or a validate->fix->retry loop, so workflow clarity is capped at 3 per the rubric.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	No bundle files exist; the body is well-sectioned with clear headers but the 100+ line inline brief template and large output blocks are content that could live in separate files, so it sits at the some-structure anchor rather than 4.	3 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Description

63%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 specific and well-differentiated, clearly conveying what the skill produces and how it differs from generic tools. Its main weakness is the absence of explicit 'when to use' trigger guidance, which limits completeness and trigger-term quality.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when...' clause with concrete user trigger phrases (e.g., 'Use when the user asks for content briefs, keyword briefs, or a content calendar for a set of keywords').

Include natural synonyms users actually say ('content briefs', 'keyword briefs', 'what should I write about') alongside the product-specific terms.

Trim the competitive dig at Surfer/Clearscope to keep the description lean and neutral in voice.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple concrete, specific actions ('SERP analysis, competing page breakdown, unique angles from real customer language (reviews, Reddit), internal linking plan, and SERP feature targets') plus a concrete batch capability ('10-50 briefs in one run'), matching the comprehensive-coverage anchor.	5 / 5
Completeness	The 'what' is explicit and detailed, but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, and the rubric caps completeness at 3 when that is missing.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Contains some relevant keywords ('content briefs', 'keyword', 'reviews, Reddit') but leans on product-specific jargon and omits common natural variations or synonyms a user would say; it is not between-anchor enough for 4.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Has a clear niche (differentiated content briefs with SERP + customer-language mining) and explicitly contrasts with Surfer/Clearscope; only minor overlap risk with adjacent SEO content skills, so above the 3 anchor but not a clean 5.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 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
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: gooseworks-ai/goose-skills
Path: skills/content/composites/content-brief-factory/SKILL.md
Commit: 2523432

Reviewed: 7 days 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.