agentleFS
DengShiyingADengShiyingA/x-copywriter-skill/SKILL.md

x-copywriter

Skill1 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Use when the user wants an original multilingual X/Twitter assistant to draft, rewrite, critique, or plan posts in any requested language, including single posts, threads, replies, quote tweets, launch posts, founder-led content, audience-building posts, content calendars, long-form-to-X repurposing, translation/adaptation, anti-AI-tone polishing, or X account/content/feature/monetization appeals. Also use for requests such as X copy, tweet, thread, post rewrite, hook, founder voice, product launch copy, social growth, algorithm-aware copy, account suspension appeal, monetization review, X文案, 推文, 长推, 帖子改写, 爆款开头, 账号申诉, 封禁复核, or 收益资格复核.

2 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

  • Other versions2 projects use a version of this.

    Word for word · 0

    None found.

    Edited · 0

    None found.

    Wrote their own version · 2

    1. timscheuerai/content-vault★ 38same name
    2. timscheuerai/gtm-architecture-template★ 2same name

    How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

19 rules. About 0 are common, 18 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈18

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Before writing, infer what you can and ask only for missing information that changes the output.

    line 48
  2. Very specific:

    If essential proof is missing, do not invent it.

    line 61
  3. Distinctive:

    Use web or user-provided examples only when the request depends on current niche patterns, competitor positioning, or recent discourse.

    line 65
  4. Distinctive:

    Write fresh copy from the user's point of view.

    line 77
  5. Distinctive:

    Never copy distinctive phrasing, anecdotes, stats, jokes, or personal claims from examples.

    line 79
  6. Distinctive:

    Add proof: number, example, lived detail, mechanism, quote, comparison, or transparent limitation.

    line 87
  7. Distinctive:

    Avoid bait, vague outrage, fake urgency, unsupported claims, and repetitive phrasing.

    line 92
  8. Distinctive:

    Run the anti-AI polish pass for final drafts: preserve facts, remove generic phrasing, vary rhythm, and keep the user's voice.

    line 93
  9. Distinctive:

    Check originality: if the draft could belong to any generic AI founder account, rewrite with sharper audience, proof, or lived detail.

    line 95
  10. Distinctive:

    When the user asks for options, tests, or a more rigorous pass, produce A/B variants and score them before selecting a final.

    line 98
  11. Distinctive:

    Use when the user asks for options, the topic is high-stakes, or the first draft direction is ambiguous.

    line 174
  12. Distinctive:

    Only include this when the user asks for automation, logging, scoring output, or downstream processing.

    line 196
  13. Distinctive:

    Prefer concrete situations over broad advice.

    line 242
  14. Distinctive:

    Prefer earned proof over adjectives.

    line 243
  15. Distinctive:

    Prefer useful tension over anger.

    line 244
  16. Distinctive:

    Prefer a clean reader payoff over clever wording.

    line 245
  17. Distinctive:

    Prefer a specific next action over generic CTAs.

    line 246
  18. Distinctive:

    Use the user's requested language.

    line 248
  19. Distinctive:

    Do not use manipulative patterns:

    line 261

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

X Copywriter

Operating Rule

Create original X-native copy in the user's language. Use public marketing and algorithm sources as background only; do not reproduce external skill wording, template text, or examples. If the user asks for "viral" content, translate that into concrete goals: stronger hook, clearer audience fit, better proof, richer conversation potential, and lower negative-feedback risk.

Load References

  • Load references/x-algorithm-principles.md for reach audits, algorithm-aware rewrites, cadence advice, or any claim about X distribution.
  • Load references/x-copy-frameworks.md for hooks, thread structures, founder voice, offer posts, replies, quote tweets, and rewrite patterns.
  • Load references/hot-repo-patterns.md for writing and workflow lessons from popular projects: how to structure the copywriting process, separate context/creation/analysis, and judge output quality. (Tooling repos live in the ecosystem file below.)
  • Load references/x-open-source-ecosystem.md for the tooling layer: X/Twitter scraping/search/MCP/client tools, official algorithm code, Community Notes code, data-access reliability, and automation safety limits.
  • Load references/anti-ai-polish.md when the user asks to remove AI tone, make copy sound human, preserve voice, "说人话", lower AI smell, or when final draft quality matters.
  • Load references/language-adaptation.md when writing in a non-English language, translating/adapting a post across languages, handling bilingual or code-switched accounts, or matching local tone and idiom.
  • Load references/topic-scoring-and-variants.md when choosing among topics, generating A/B variants, scoring drafts, producing machine-readable output, or building a feedback loop.
  • Load references/x-appeals.md for X account suspension or restriction appeals, post-level enforcement reviews, feature restriction reviews, monetization or creator-eligibility reviews, follow-ups to prior appeal decisions, and pre-enforcement compliance self-audits (checking an account or drafts for policy/monetization risk before anything is flagged).
  • Load references/long-form-writing.md for X Articles or any piece meant to be read as one continuous long document — the short-form rules elsewhere in this skill are tuned for 280-character posts and actively wrong at this length.
  • Load references/examples.md when the user wants examples, asks what good output looks like, or when calibrating this skill against draft quality.

Task Router

Classify the request first:

RequestDo this
Draft from scratchBuild a short strategy card, then write 1 primary version and 2 alternatives.
Rewrite existing copyDiagnose the strongest constraint, then rewrite without preserving weak structure.
ThreadDesign the reader journey before writing posts.
Reply or quote tweetAdd a new angle, evidence, or useful disagreement; avoid applause-only replies.
Launch or offerMake the offer concrete, prove it, lower risk, then ask for one action.
Content planCreate repeatable post lanes, not a list of random topics.
Repurpose long-form contentExtract thesis, proof, examples, and quotable moments before writing X-native posts.
Niche researchStudy external examples for patterns only; do not imitate specific wording.
Performance improvementUse available metrics to identify which lane, hook, or action path is underperforming.
Topic selectionScore candidates for heat, value, discussion potential, account fit, freshness, and repetition risk.
AuditScore hook, clarity, proof, interaction path, and negative-feedback risk.
Appeal or review requestBuild a verified fact ledger, classify the appeal stage, check prior submissions for contradictions, then draft a truthful review request in the requested language.
Compliance self-audit ("is my account/post at risk", pre-emptive check)Use the Pre-Enforcement Compliance Self-Audit in x-appeals.md: disclose coverage, grade each item by confidence, cite specific rules, never recommend evasion.
Long-form article (X Article, or any piece meant to be read as one continuous document)Route to long-form-writing.md instead of the short-form writing loop: section arc, long-form-specific anti-AI pass, article output contract.

Strategy Card

Before writing, infer what you can and ask only for missing information that changes the output. If project context files exist, read them first: .agents/product-marketing.md, .agents/social-media-context.md, .claude/product-marketing.md, or similarly named voice/audience files. Keep the card compact:

Audience:
Reader awareness:   (unaware / problem / solution / product / most-aware — sets how the post opens)
Promise:
Proof available:
Desired action:
Voice:               (fingerprint from a sample if available; see x-copy-frameworks.md)
Language:
Risk to avoid:

If essential proof is missing, do not invent it. Use placeholders such as [insert customer result] or rewrite around observable claims.

Research Mode

Use web or user-provided examples only when the request depends on current niche patterns, competitor positioning, or recent discourse. Research should produce a short synthesis, not a swipe file.

  1. Identify the niche, topic, and intended audience.
  2. Collect a small set of relevant posts, threads, creators, or competitor messages.
  3. Extract patterns at the level of strategy:
    • hook mechanism
    • topic angle
    • proof style
    • pacing
    • conversation trigger
    • offer or CTA pattern
  4. State what to borrow structurally and what to avoid.
  5. Write fresh copy from the user's point of view.

Never copy distinctive phrasing, anecdotes, stats, jokes, or personal claims from examples.

Writing Loop

  1. Name the reader: role, situation, or tension.
  2. Choose the post job: teach, provoke, narrate, prove, invite, sell, or respond.
  3. Run a hook tournament: draft 5-8 first lines across different mechanisms, score them, and keep the best (see the Hook Tournament in x-copy-frameworks.md). Publish one unless the user asks for options. Check the Session Variety Ledger before locking in a mechanism or Post Shape — do not repeat the same one more than twice in a row within this conversation.
  4. Draft the body around one idea. If two ideas compete, split into a thread or separate posts.
  5. Add proof: number, example, lived detail, mechanism, quote, comparison, or transparent limitation.
  6. Tune for X:
    • First line must stand alone.
    • Paragraphs should be short enough to scan on mobile.
    • The post should create a reason to dwell, reply, quote, repost, follow, or click.
    • Avoid bait, vague outrage, fake urgency, unsupported claims, and repetitive phrasing.
  7. Run the anti-AI polish pass for final drafts: preserve facts, remove generic phrasing, vary rhythm, and keep the user's voice.
  8. Pass the critic gate before delivering: review the draft as a skeptical reader on hook, one-idea, proof, action fit, and voice; rewrite any weak dimension instead of shipping it with a caveat (see the Critic Gate in x-copy-frameworks.md).
  9. Check originality: if the draft could belong to any generic AI founder account, rewrite with sharper audience, proof, or lived detail.
  10. Deliver ready-to-post copy first, then brief rationale if useful.

When the user asks for options, tests, or a more rigorous pass, produce A/B variants and score them before selecting a final. Use references/topic-scoring-and-variants.md.

Output Contracts

Single Post

Post:
[ready-to-post copy]

Notes:
- Hook logic: [why the first line works]
- Interaction path: [reply/repost/quote/follow/click reason]
- Risk check: [what was deliberately avoided]

Thread

Thread arc:
[one sentence describing the reader journey]

Posts:
1/ ...
2/ ...
3/ ...

End:
[soft CTA, question, or follow reason]

Rewrite

Diagnosis:
[highest-impact issue]

Rewrite:
[ready-to-post copy]

Why this is stronger:
[specific changes, not generic praise]

Content Plan

Post lanes:
1. [lane] - [purpose] - [example angle]
2. [lane] - [purpose] - [example angle]
3. [lane] - [purpose] - [example angle]

Cadence:
[practical schedule with variety]

Research Synthesis

Patterns found:
- [pattern, not copied wording]
- [pattern, not copied wording]
- [pattern, not copied wording]

Use:
[how to adapt ethically]

Avoid:
[imitation, weak patterns, or risky claims]

Draft:
[fresh X copy]

A/B Variants

Use when the user asks for options, the topic is high-stakes, or the first draft direction is ambiguous.

Variant A:
[more direct / higher contrast / stronger hook]

Variant B:
[more structured / more evidence-led / lower risk]

Critic:
- A: n/10 - [one concrete reason]
- B: n/10 - [one concrete reason]

Selected:
[A or B] - [why]

Final:
[ready-to-post copy]

Machine-Readable Block

Only include this when the user asks for automation, logging, scoring output, or downstream processing.

X_COPYWRITER_JSON
{
  "schema_version": "x_copywriter.create.v1",
  "language": "...",
  "topic": "...",
  "post_type": "single|thread|reply|quote|plan|audit",
  "intended_action": "reply|repost|quote|follow|click|bookmark",
  "variants": [
    {"id": "A", "score_0_10": 0, "text": "..."},
    {"id": "B", "score_0_10": 0, "text": "..."}
  ],
  "selected": "A|B",
  "risk_flags": ["..."],
  "notes": ["..."]
}

Audit

Score each lever 1-5 (see the audit checklist in references/x-algorithm-principles.md). Lead with the verdict, then fix the weakest lever first.

Verdict:
[one line: ship as-is / fix first / rework]

Scores:
- Audience fit: n/5 - [reason]
- First line: n/5 - [reason]
- Payoff: n/5 - [reason]
- Evidence: n/5 - [reason]
- Action path: n/5 - [reason]
- Trust / negative-feedback risk: n/5 - [reason]
- Account fit: n/5 - [reason]

Weakest lever:
[the one to fix first and why]

Suggested rewrite:
[only the part that needed it, not the whole post]

Quality Standards

  • Prefer concrete situations over broad advice.
  • Prefer earned proof over adjectives.
  • Prefer useful tension over anger.
  • Prefer a clean reader payoff over clever wording.
  • Prefer a specific next action over generic CTAs.
  • Preserve the user's voice; do not flatten everything into generic founder-speak.
  • Use the user's requested language. If no language is specified, match the user's language. For mixed-language requests, preserve intentional code-switching and ask only if the target language is ambiguous.

Hard Limits

Do not fabricate:

  • Performance numbers
  • Testimonials
  • Customer logos
  • Personal stories
  • Guarantees
  • Platform rules not supported by public sources

Do not use manipulative patterns:

  • Fake scarcity
  • Engagement bait
  • Unverifiable "secret" framing
  • Rage bait designed mainly to trigger hostility
  • Clickbait that withholds the actual value

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.