content-creator

Draft and review audience-specific content using supplied brand examples, local text diagnostics, and adaptable channel templates.

Quality

56%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/content-creator/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

60%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 delivers strong, honest, executable guidance: verified scripts with exact invocations, per-scenario workflows with review checkpoints, explicit input boundaries, a worked example, and candid limitations. Its main cost is token efficiency — a sizable fraction of the body is generic marketing knowledge Claude already possesses, and the file is longer than a well-disclosed overview needs to be.

Suggestions

Cut or compress the "Performance Metrics", "Common Pitfalls", and "Integration Points" sections (or move them to a reference file) — they restate content-marketing knowledge Claude already has and were the main conciseness penalty.

Replace vague workflow steps ("Research keywords for topic", "Identify primary platforms based on audience") with concrete method or pointer to a reference, which would lift actionability to fully executable.

Add an explicit fix-and-retry loop after the optimization-check step (e.g., what to do when seo_optimizer diagnostics conflict with brand voice) to strengthen workflow validation.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Several sections restate generic content-marketing knowledge Claude already has: "Performance Metrics" (organic traffic, bounce rate, conversion rate), "Best Practices", "Common Pitfalls", and "Integration Points" account for roughly a quarter of the body — noticeably verbose with multiple padded sections, matching anchor 2. It is not a 1 because the core workflows, boundaries, worked example, and limitations are tight and skill-specific.	2 / 5
Actionability	Concrete, copy-paste-ready commands are given for both scripts (verified to exist with matching CLI signatures), a per-reference usage map, a calendar copy command, and a fully specified worked example. It falls short of anchor 5 because some steps remain high-level ("Research keywords for topic", "Identify primary platforms based on audience") without concrete method.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Each use case has a clearly numbered sequence with explicit review checkpoints ("Review suggestions against the audience and actual page before publishing", "verify the instructions against the actual product and compare tone with two approved posts"). It is not a 5 because no fix-and-retry feedback loops are defined and some checkpoints are implicit ("Refine based on results").	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	All six bundle files (three references, two scripts, one asset) exist, are referenced one level deep, and are consolidated under a "When to Use Each Reference" section — good structure with clear signals. It is not a 5 because the SKILL.md itself is a ~270-line body that inlines material (Performance Metrics, Best Practices) that belongs in a reference file, making the overview heavier than an index-style entry point.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 20 Passed

Description

53%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 gives a clear, honest statement of what the skill does with moderate specificity and a distinguishable marketing-content identity. Its main weaknesses are the absence of any "Use when…" trigger clause (capping completeness) and sparse natural trigger terms — the keywords users would actually say (blog posts, social media, SEO) appear only in the body, not the description.

Suggestions

Append an explicit trigger clause such as "Use when writing blog posts, creating social media content, establishing brand voice, optimizing content for SEO, or planning a content calendar" to raise completeness and trigger-term quality.

Include the natural synonyms users say ("blog posts", "social media", "SEO", "marketing content") directly in the description rather than only in the body's Keywords section.

Enumerate one or two more concrete capabilities (e.g., SEO diagnostics, platform-specific adaptation) so the description lists several specific actions instead of two generic ones.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names the content-marketing domain and two concrete actions ("Draft and review audience-specific content") plus concrete means ("local text diagnostics", "adaptable channel templates"), but does not enumerate several specific actions like blog posts, SEO optimization, or social media adaptation, matching the 1-2-concrete-actions anchor rather than the several-actions anchor.	3 / 5
Completeness	It clearly answers "what" (draft and review audience-specific content using brand examples, local diagnostics, and channel templates) but contains no "Use when…" clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. It is not a 2 because the "what" is clear rather than vague.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Phrases like "content", "brand", and "channel templates" are terms users would plausibly say, but the natural phrases most users would actually use — "blog posts", "social media", "SEO", "marketing" — are missing from the description, fitting the some-relevant-keywords-but-missing-common-variations anchor. It is above anchor 2 because more than one or two relevant, non-generic keywords are present.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	"supplied brand examples", "local text diagnostics", and "adaptable channel templates" carve out a recognizable marketing-content niche with mostly distinct triggers and only minor overlap risk with generic writing/copyediting skills. It is not a 5 because the broad term "content" and the missing "when" guidance leave some overlap with general writing assistance.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 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: sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills
Path: skills/content-creator/SKILL.md
Commit: 7b534bc

Reviewed: 5 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.