agentleFS
QinghongLinQinghongLin/data2story-skill/skills/data2story/editor/SKILL.md

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

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.
  • MicrosoftSkill

    doctor

    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

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
  1. Very specific:

    Read PROJECT_DIR/analyst.json and PROJECT_DIR/detective.json before doing anything

    line 17
  2. Very specific:

    Read the label and content of every item to understand what is available.

    line 27
  3. Distinctive:

    Cut: not worth reader attention (weak evidence, confounded, or obvious)

    line 38
  4. Distinctive:

    Only one finding can be Lead.

    line 40
  5. Very specific:

    Use actual numbers from the analyst's content fields — do not re-calculate or approximate

    line 75
  6. Very specific:

    When analyst.json contains paper structure or review analysis, additional narrative angles ("The Verdict Explained", "The Reviewers' War", …

    line 86

“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.

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

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.json and PROJECT_DIR/detective.json before 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 by det_01, ... — label, content (prose), category, sources. The external context.
  • analyst.json: items keyed by ana_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_xx items this section draws on, in order of importance
  • Context: which det_xx items provide background
  • What it says: full publication-ready prose — complete paragraphs, not notes
  • Chart placeholder: [CHART: ana_xx] — which finding's data_table drives the chart here, if any
  • Media placeholder: [MEDIA: hint] — one of map / 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 content fields — 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 the edt_xx ID and list evidence + context. Full format and example in references/editor_md_template.json.
  • PROJECT_DIR/editor.json — machine-readable section structure. Structure in references/schema.json; field-by-field semantics in references/field_rules.json (note full_triage must map EVERY ana_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.

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.