write-content
Skill2 starsChanged 9 months agoMITView on GitHub
Create content with automatic review pipeline
5 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- methylo/claude-skill-booktheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- pollinations/search.elixpotheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- tifetola/claude-skills-contenttheir own version, first seen May 27, 2026
- flakey-caster542/superseo-skillstheir own version, first seen Apr 13, 2026
- phoenixvn/claude-code-agencytheir own version, first seen Apr 11, 2026
Other versions5 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 5
- pollinations/search.elixpo★ 24same name
- flakey-caster542/superseo-skills★ 1same name
- methylo/claude-skill-book★ 1same name
- tifetola/claude-skills-content★ 1same name
- phoenixvn/claude-code-agency★ 0same 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.
In this repository6 other files it gives its agents.
- auto-fixSkill
- content-pipelineSkill
- edit-contentSkill
- fact-checkSkill
- review-contentSkill
- shipSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
8 rules. 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 4 edited versions we read keep these.
8
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 19
Create the following content:
- Distinctive: line 26
Check existing content for style reference
- Distinctive: line 27
Write the content following project guidelines
- Distinctive: line 28
After writing, delegate to content-reviewer for quality review
- Distinctive: line 29
If reviewer says REVISE, make changes and re-submit (max 2 rounds)
- Distinctive: line 41
Create an outline with:
- Distinctive: line 58
After you finish writing:
- Distinctive: line 88
Before submitting for review, verify:
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 4 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Write Content
Create the following content:
Brief: $ARGUMENTS
Instructions
- Research the topic if needed
- Check existing content for style reference
- Write the content following project guidelines
- After writing, delegate to content-reviewer for quality review
- If reviewer says REVISE, make changes and re-submit (max 2 rounds)
Research Phase
Before writing:
- Check existing content — read 2-3 similar pieces to understand tone and style
- Identify gaps — what's missing from current content?
- Gather sources — find 3-5 credible sources for facts and statistics
- Verify currency — ensure sources are recent (prefer last 2 years)
Outline Requirements
Create an outline with:
- Thesis/main point — what's the one key takeaway?
- Supporting points — 3-5 major sections with subsections
- Conclusion — summary + clear next steps or call-to-action
- Estimated word count — based on brief complexity
Draft Quality Standards
Your draft must be:
- Original — no copy-paste, rewrite everything in your own words
- Cited — link to sources for all statistics, quotes, and factual claims
- Structured — clear headings, short paragraphs, scannable format
- Complete — cover all points in the brief
- On-brand — match project tone and style
Auto-Review Pipeline
After you finish writing:
- Spawn
content-reviewerto review your work - If REVISE: fix the issues and re-submit to reviewer (max 2 rounds)
- If APPROVE: report completion with metadata
- If REJECT: escalate to human review with reviewer's feedback
Maximum 2 revision rounds — if still REVISE after 2 rounds, escalate to human.
Output Format
Provide the completed content with metadata:
# [Title]
[Content here]
---
## Metadata
- **Word count:** [number]
- **Reading time:** [X minutes at 250 words/min]
- **Primary keyword:** [keyword]
- **Target audience:** [description]
- **Review status:** [APPROVED/REVISE/REJECT]
- **Revision count:** [0-2]Quality Checklist
Before submitting for review, verify:
- Followed project tone and style
- All facts cited with sources
- Headings descriptive and scannable
- Paragraphs 3-4 sentences max
- No weasel words or filler phrases
- Clear call-to-action or next steps
- Reading level appropriate (Flesch-Kincaid 8-10)
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
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.

