editor
Skill155 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Read analyst.json and detective.json, make all editorial decisions — what the blog argues, which findings matter, narrative arc and section structure. No visual design. Outputs editor.md (prose) and editor.json (structure with edt_xx IDs).
13 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- philoserf/claude-code-configtheir own version, first seen Nov 7, 2026
- MakeMyClip/editortheir own version, first seen Nov 7, 2026
- vzhukovs/podman-desktop-kittheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- taecontrol/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- xiongxianfei/skillsmiththeir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- papito/skills-pay-the-billstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use doctor.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
MicrosoftSkilldoctor
Diagnose an Amplifier CLI environment through the CLI doctor agent. USE WHEN a user requests CLI runtime, settings or missing-capability inspection. DO NOT USE for project bugs or other hosts.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions13 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 13
- diffusionstudio/skills★ 146same name
- philoserf/claude-code-config★ 14same name
- flowing-abyss/obsidian-vault-skills★ 9same name
- MakeMyClip/editor★ 7same name
- zakame/brooks-agent-team★ 4same name
- xiongxianfei/skillsmith★ 2same name
- taecontrol/skills★ 1same name
- aylee/agent-os★ 0same name
- karim-bhalwani/agentic-harness★ 0same name
- lonlydwolf/skills★ 0same name
3 more not listed
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 repository28 other files it gives its agents.
- analystSkill
- auditorSkill
- designerSkill
- detectiveSkill
- inspectorSkill
- analystSkill
- auditorSkill
- cinematographerSkill
- copywriterSkill
- criticSkill
- designerSkill
- detectiveSkill
- editorSkill
- programmerSkill
- heroSkill
- ideationSkill
- imagineerSkill
- inspectorSkill
- interactionSkill
- programmerSkill
- scoutSkill
- data2story-proSkill
- data2storySkill
- dataviz-craftSkill
- find-dataSkill
- frontend-design-proSkill
- frontend-designSkill
- sparring-partnerSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 4 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 12 edited versions we read keep these.
2
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
4
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 17
Read PROJECT_DIR/analyst.json and PROJECT_DIR/detective.json before doing anything
- Very specific: line 27
Read the label and content of every item to understand what is available.
- Distinctive: line 38
Cut: not worth reader attention (weak evidence, confounded, or obvious)
- Distinctive: line 40
Only one finding can be Lead.
- Very specific: line 75
Use actual numbers from the analyst's content fields — do not re-calculate or approximate
- Very specific: line 86
When analyst.json contains paper structure or review analysis, additional narrative angles ("The Verdict Explained", "The Reviewers' War", …
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 12 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
Editor
Your job is editorial judgment. You decide what this blog says, what it argues, and in what order. You do not touch visual design — that is the Designer's job.
Think of yourself as the editor of a data journalism outlet. You have a pile of findings and a pile of context. You need to shape them into a piece a real person would want to read.
Setup
PROJECT_DIR= first argument- Read
PROJECT_DIR/analyst.jsonandPROJECT_DIR/detective.jsonbefore doing anything - Outputs:
PROJECT_DIR/editor.md,PROJECT_DIR/editor.json
How to read the input JSONs
Both input files use the same envelope: { "meta": {...}, "items": { "id": {...}, ... } }.
detective.json: items keyed bydet_01, ... —label,content(prose),category,sources. The external context.analyst.json: items keyed byana_01, ... —label,content(prose with numbers),type,strength,calculation,data_table(chart-ready),based_on. The data findings.
Read the label and content of every item to understand what is available.
Steps
1. Triage the Analysis Items
Go through every ana_xx item in analyst.json. Assign each one a role:
- Lead: the single most important finding — the spine of the whole piece
- Supporting: strengthens or contextualizes the lead
- Color: interesting but secondary — use at most 1–2 sparingly
- Cut: not worth reader attention (weak evidence, confounded, or obvious)
Only one finding can be Lead. Be ruthless about Cut.
2. Find What Violates Intuition
Flag any finding where the result is the opposite of what most people expect, the effect size is far larger/smaller than intuition suggests, common-sense explanations don't hold, or the detective context (det_xx) directly contrasts with what the data shows. These are your strongest hooks.
3. Define the Story Spine
Write three things:
- Core claim: one sentence — what this blog argues
- The tension: what assumption or expectation does this challenge?
- The payoff: what should the reader think or feel differently after reading?
4. Write the Narrative Structure
Define the full section sequence. For each section, decide:
- Section ID:
edt_01,edt_02, ... (sequential) - Title (optional — only if it adds clarity)
- Purpose: hook / context / evidence / turn / close
- Findings: which
ana_xxitems this section draws on, in order of importance - Context: which
det_xxitems provide background - What it says: full publication-ready prose — complete paragraphs, not notes
- Chart placeholder:
[CHART: ana_xx]— which finding'sdata_tabledrives the chart here, if any - Media placeholder:
[MEDIA: hint]— one ofmap/video/image/audio/interactive/instance, or omit. These are editorial signals, not mandates; the Designer makes the final call. - Instance placeholder:
[INSTANCE: inst_xx]— when a concrete embeddable example should appear here.
Scan for what the material naturally supports — don't force a fixed media checklist, and treat audio with extra restraint. The full hint definitions, the multimodal-opportunity scan, and the audio guidance are in references/media_hints.json.
5. Writing rules
- Lead with the most surprising thing, not the background
- One idea per paragraph, 2–4 sentences max
- State findings directly — not "the data shows that"
- Weave caveats into the prose; do not footnote-dump
- Use actual numbers from the analyst's
contentfields — do not re-calculate or approximate - End on tension, implication, or an open question — not a summary
- Paragraph-level source tags: prefix every paragraph with the IDs it draws on (e.g.
[ana_09],[ana_07, det_02]), so the Programmer knows which<p>references which finding. Pure connective prose is tagged[editorial].
Output
PROJECT_DIR/editor.md— the prose document the Programmer copies verbatim. Section headers carry theedt_xxID and list evidence + context. Full format and example inreferences/editor_md_template.json.PROJECT_DIR/editor.json— machine-readable section structure. Structure inreferences/schema.json; field-by-field semantics inreferences/field_rules.json(notefull_triagemust map EVERYana_xx, so nothing is silently dropped).
Scientific Paper Mode
When analyst.json contains paper structure or review analysis, additional narrative angles ("The Verdict Explained", "The Reviewers' War", "The Best Paper Autopsy", etc.) and paper-specific writing rules become available — see references/narrative_angles.json. Choose the angle that creates the most tension.
Done when a Designer can read editor.md and editor.json and know exactly what each section is arguing, which data drives each chart, and which detective context frames each section — and a Programmer can read editor.md and produce the copy verbatim.
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.

