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

70%

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.

A highly actionable, well-sequenced process guide with real commands and a thorough output template, weakened by editorial padding, duplicated trigger lists, and the absence of any validation checkpoints for its batch operation. The monolithic structure inlines ~150 lines of templates that belong in reference files, since no bundle files exist at all.

Suggestions

Add validation checkpoints to the batch workflow: e.g., verify each SERP API call succeeded (retry or fall back to baseline mode on failure), dedupe keywords against existing coverage before Phase 2, and check each generated brief against the Competitive Advantage Checklist before assembling the Phase 4 batch output.

Move the full brief template (Phase 3) and batch-output template (Phase 4) into references/brief-template.md and references/batch-output-template.md, keeping only a short annotated excerpt in SKILL.md.

Trim the editorial intro, "Core principle" paragraph, and the Trigger Phrases section (which duplicates When to Use), and cut the duplicated tool-setup prose between the Tool Enhancement section and Tools Required.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly concrete instruction, but includes unnecessary padding: the editorial opening ("Most content briefs are garbage"), the "Core principle" paragraph, Tool Enhancement prose that duplicates the Tools Required section, and a Trigger Phrases section that repeats the When to Use list verbatim. It is not 2 because there is little explanation of concepts Claude already knows; it is not 4 because the duplicated and editorial sections are clearly trimmable.	3 / 5
Actionability	Provides concrete executable commands (catalog_content.py, scrape_reviews.py, search_reddit.py invocations with flags), a SerpAPI GET example, and a complete output template. It is not 5 because the commands depend on external skills' script signatures that are not shown, and there is no example of parsing or handling an actual SERP API response — a key execution step is left implicit.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Phases 0–4 are clearly sequenced with per-phase sub-steps (2A/2B/2C), but this is a batch operation (10–50 briefs per run) with no validation or verification checkpoints — no handling of failed SERP calls or page fetches, no keyword dedup check, no brief-completeness verification before batch output. Per the judging guidelines, batch operations without validation cap workflow clarity at 3. It is not 4 specifically because those checkpoints are absent, not merely minor.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Section headers are well-organized, but there is no bundle at all (no references/, scripts/, or assets/), and ~150 lines of brief and batch-output templates that clearly belong in separate reference files are inlined in SKILL.md. It is not 4 because content that should be split out is inline; it is not 2 because the file is navigable with clear phase structure rather than a monolithic wall.	3 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Description

71%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 specific, domain-rich description that clearly communicates what the skill produces and stays in a distinct niche. Its main weaknesses are the complete absence of a "Use when..." trigger clause (capping completeness) and missing common natural terms like "SEO", along with the marketing over-claim "Crushes generic 'keyword density' briefs" which adds fluff rather than information.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when the user asks for content briefs, SEO briefs for keyword lists, or editorial plans for what to write."

Include the natural synonyms users actually say — "SEO", "content calendar", "article outline", "what should we write about" — in the description itself rather than only in the body's Trigger Phrases section.

Drop the comparative marketing line "Crushes generic 'keyword density' briefs from tools like Surfer or Clearscope" or reduce it to a factual differentiator; over-claims are penalized and it consumes the description's token budget.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description lists multiple concrete actions — "SERP analysis, competing page breakdown, unique angles from real customer language (reviews, Reddit), internal linking plan, and SERP feature targets" plus "10-50 briefs in one run" — comprehensively covering the skill's capability surface in third-person voice. It is not 4 because there are no gaps in the action coverage; it is not below 5 because every clause names a concrete capability rather than a vague abstraction.	5 / 5
Completeness	The "what" is clear and detailed, but the description contains no "Use when..." clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which per the judging guidelines caps completeness at 3. It is not 4 because the "when" is entirely absent from the description rather than merely implicit or under-specified.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Good natural keyword coverage — "content briefs", "SERP", "keyword density", "Surfer", "Clearscope", "reviews, Reddit" — but common user phrasings like "SEO", "content calendar", "article outline", and "what should we write" are absent (they only appear in the body, not the description). It sits between anchor 3 (missing common variations) and anchor 5 (comprehensive synonyms), noticeably above the midpoint.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Phrases like "differentiated content briefs", "SERP feature targets", and the named competitors "Surfer or Clearscope" carve a clear niche that is unlikely to trigger generic writing skills. It is not 5 because without explicit trigger phrases there remains minor overlap risk with adjacent SEO research skills.	4 / 5
	Total	16 / 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: cc3e518

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.