editorial-qa

Pre-publish QA framework for content. Brief adherence, voice consistency, fact accuracy, structure and clarity, AI-content audit, SEO and AEO compliance, internal linking and schema validation, QA at scale via sampling, the QA workflow, and the discipline that distinguishes catch-problems QA from checkbox QA. Triggers on editorial QA, content review, pre-publish review, content audit, content QA process, AI-content audit, hallucination check, content sampling, programmatic QA, voice consistency check, brief adherence check. Also triggers when a content team is shipping sloppy work, when AI-co-authored content is reaching publish unaudited, when a QA process burns reviewers out, or when a programmatic SEO set needs sampling discipline.

Quality

—

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Advisory

Suggest reviewing before use

Quality

Content

85%

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 well-structured, actionable editorial-QA playbook with clear sequencing, feedback loops, and exemplary progressive disclosure to ten reference files. Its main weakness is conciseness: the keystone thesis and the 12-considerations framework restate content already covered in dedicated sections.

Suggestions

Consolidate the 'catch-problems vs checkbox QA' thesis to a single authoritative section and reference it from the intro/framework/common-failures rather than restating it each time.

Trim or fold the '12 considerations' framework list into the section headings it restates, or relabel it as a recap so the repetition is intentional rather than incidental.

Cut throat-clearing framing sentences (e.g., 'The keystone distinction. Two failure modes plus the discipline.') that add length without adding actionable guidance.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is opinionated methodology rather than generic padding, but the 'catch-problems QA vs checkbox QA' thesis is restated across the intro, a dedicated section, the 12-considerations framework list, and common failure modes, and the 12 considerations largely restate the preceding sections — verbosity that could be tightened despite accuracy.	2 / 3
Actionability	As an instruction-only skill the guidance is concrete and specific with quantitative thresholds — '40 to 60 word answer paragraph', 'Random sample 50 to 200 pages', 'more than 5% of sampled pages fail... halt', '3 to 7 for typical 1,500-word piece' — making it directly actionable per the code-vs-instruction scoring note.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Explicit sequencing ('Brief-adherence, then fact-accuracy, then structure, then AI-content audit, then voice, then SEO/AEO, then internal linking, then schema'), halt/flag/auto-fix decision points, escalation on patterns, and a validate→fix→retry feedback loop for batch operations via threshold gating.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Clear overview body with ten well-signaled one-level-deep references, each surfaced inline via 'Detail in [references/...]' and consolidated in a 'Reference files' index; all referenced files exist and detail is appropriately split out of the main file.	3 / 3
	Total	11 / 12 Passed

Description

100%

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, comprehensive, and trigger-rich, covering both what the skill does and when to use it with natural keywords and scenario triggers. It uses third person and carves out a distinct niche from related content skills.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple concrete named checks — 'Brief adherence, voice consistency, fact accuracy, structure and clarity, AI-content audit, SEO and AEO compliance, internal linking and schema validation, QA at scale via sampling' — rather than vague language, matching the 'lists multiple specific concrete actions' anchor.	3 / 3
Completeness	Clearly answers both what ('Pre-publish QA framework for content' with the enumerated checks) and when via explicit 'Triggers on...' and 'Also triggers when...' clauses, satisfying the explicit-trigger anchor.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Explicit natural trigger terms a content team would actually say — 'editorial QA, content review, pre-publish review, content audit, hallucination check, voice consistency check, brief adherence check' — plus scenario triggers, giving good coverage.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Occupies a clear niche (pre-publish QA gate for content) with distinct triggers and third-person voice, making it unlikely to fire for sibling content-creation skills.	3 / 3
	Total	12 / 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
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: rampstackco/claude-skills
Commit: f1bc195

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.