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.
68
26%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
98%
1.44xAverage score across 6 eval scenarios
Advisory
Suggest reviewing before use
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./skills/business-productivity/content-research-writer/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
25%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 lists several writing-related actions but remains too broad and generic to serve as an effective skill selector among many skills. It lacks a 'Use when...' clause, uses second person ('your writing process'), and the final sentence is marketing fluff that adds no discriminative value. The skill would benefit from narrowing its scope and adding explicit trigger conditions.
Suggestions
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause specifying trigger scenarios, e.g., 'Use when the user asks for help drafting articles, blog posts, essays, or long-form content with citations.'
Narrow the scope to a specific content type or domain (e.g., 'academic writing', 'blog posts', 'marketing copy') to reduce conflict risk with other writing-related skills.
Remove the second-person fluff sentence ('Transforms your writing process...') and replace with concrete, third-person capability statements and natural trigger terms like 'draft', 'article', 'blog post', 'essay', 'proofread'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists several actions (conducting research, adding citations, improving hooks, iterating on outlines, providing feedback), but they are somewhat generic writing-related activities rather than highly concrete, tool-specific operations. The second sentence is pure marketing fluff. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Describes what it does (research, citations, hooks, outlines, feedback) but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill. Per rubric guidelines, missing 'Use when...' caps completeness at 2, and the 'when' is not even implied clearly, warranting a 1. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Contains some relevant keywords like 'writing', 'citations', 'outlines', 'hooks', and 'research', but misses common user trigger terms like 'essay', 'article', 'blog post', 'draft', 'edit', or 'proofread'. Terms are moderately natural but not comprehensive. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | 'Writing high-quality content' is extremely broad and would conflict with many other writing, editing, or content-related skills. There is no specific niche, file type, or domain that distinguishes this from general writing assistance. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 6 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
27%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is extremely verbose and treats Claude like a novice writer who needs to be taught basic concepts about hooks, outlines, and feedback. The templates and examples, while structured, are largely things Claude already knows how to produce. The content would benefit enormously from being cut to ~25% of its current length and splitting detailed templates into referenced files.
Suggestions
Cut the content to under 100 lines by removing explanations of concepts Claude already knows (what hooks are, how to ask clarifying questions, basic writing advice like 'take breaks') and keeping only project-specific conventions or non-obvious patterns.
Move detailed templates (feedback format, citation styles, outline structure) into separate referenced files like TEMPLATES.md and CITATION-FORMATS.md, keeping only a brief summary in the main skill.
Remove the 'When to Use This Skill' and 'What This Skill Does' sections entirely—these duplicate the description and instructions without adding actionable value.
Add explicit validation checkpoints to workflows, e.g., 'After outlining, confirm with user before proceeding to research' and 'After research, verify all citations are from credible sources before integrating into draft.'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely verbose at ~400+ lines. Explains obvious concepts like what a hook is, how to ask clarifying questions, and basic writing advice ('Take breaks', 'Read aloud'). Template structures are overly detailed with placeholder text that Claude already knows how to generate. The 'When to Use This Skill' and 'What This Skill Does' sections largely duplicate each other and the instructions. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides structured templates and example outputs (research format, feedback format, citation styles), which is somewhat concrete. However, most guidance is meta-level instruction about how to behave rather than executable commands or code. The examples show output formats but are largely illustrative rather than copy-paste actionable. Research instructions say 'Search for relevant information' without specifying how. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Multiple workflows are listed (Blog Post, Newsletter, Technical Tutorial, Thought Leadership) with numbered steps, providing decent sequencing. However, there are no validation checkpoints or feedback loops for error recovery. Steps like 'Research key points' and 'Polish and edit' are vague. The main 8-step instruction workflow has clear ordering but no verification gates between steps. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Everything is crammed into a single monolithic file with no references to external files. The content includes extensive templates, multiple workflow types, examples, pro tips, best practices, and file organization all inline. Much of this (especially the detailed feedback templates and citation format examples) could be split into separate reference files to keep the main skill lean. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 6 / 12 Passed |
Validation
81%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 9 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
skill_md_line_count | SKILL.md is long (540 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking | Warning |
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 9 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- majiayu000/claude-skill-registry
- Commit
d156cd1
- 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.