agentleFS
crealworkcrealwork/ai-marketing-kit/skills/youtube-edit-kit/SKILL.md

youtube-edit-kit

Skill18 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Use when a user provides a video file (talking head, vlog, tutorial, recording — 영상, 녹화본) and wants it edited for YouTube — silence/filler cuts, burned captions, SRT, chapters — or wants vertical Shorts/Reels cut from it. Triggers: "영상 편집해줘", "쇼츠 만들어줘", "edit this video", "cut the silences", "make shorts from this", "add captions and chapters".

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈4

    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. Very specific:

    G0 — Setup: Verify EVERY tool in references/SETUP.md with its verify command.

    line 26
  2. Distinctive:

    Never cut inside a word — snap every edge to a word boundary, then pad it.

    line 53
  3. Distinctive:

    Never re-transcribe an edited file for captions — map original timestamps through the piece table (CAPTIONS.md §2).

    line 54
  4. Distinctive:

    No render before the user approves the strategy.

    line 60
  5. Distinctive:

    Verify by LOOKING at extracted frames, never by exit code alone.

    line 62

≈ “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

YouTube Edit Kit

One source video in → a clean YouTube cut out: silence + disfluency cuts, burned corrected captions, SRT + chapters, and optional vertical shorts. Free and local — ffmpeg + faster-whisper, no API key.

Every gate below is MANDATORY, in order. Skipping a gate or a self-test is a failure, not a shortcut. Violating the letter of these rules is violating their spirit. Each rule exists because an agent already broke it in production.

Gates (run in order)

digraph gates {
    "G0 Setup check" -> "G1 Transcribe + read" -> "G2 Strategy confirm" -> "G3 Cut + render" -> "G4 Captions" -> "G5 Shorts (optional)" -> "G6 Self-review";
    "G0 Setup check" -> "STOP: give user references/SETUP.md installs, wait" [label="tool missing"];
    "G2 Strategy confirm" -> "WAIT for user OK" [label="no approval"];
}

G0 — Setup. Verify EVERY tool in references/SETUP.md with its verify command. Missing → hand the user that file's install instructions and wait. Never substitute a "similar" tool.

G1 — Transcribe. references/EDIT.md §1: word-level verbatim, cached per source, then READ the entire packed transcript. Cut decisions come from reading.

G2 — Strategy confirm. Present cut approach + estimated length (+ shorts count and hook list if applicable) and WAIT for the user's OK. Rendering before approval is a violation, not initiative.

G3 — Cut. references/EDIT.md §3–5: EDL (silence + disfluency) → per-segment render → lossless concat.

G4 — Captions. references/CAPTIONS.md — read it before writing any cue. Term review first (scan_terms.py + reading; YOU are the AI reviewer for proper nouns/jargon/onomatopoeia — ask the user what you can't verify), then corrections dictionary, output-timeline mapping, burn LAST.

G5 — Shorts. references/SHORTS.md — moment selection, hook titles, first-frame rule, blocking self-tests.

G6 — Self-review. references/EDIT.md §7: look at frames, check duration, spot-check sync. If you wouldn't ship it, don't present it.

Hard rules (production correctness — non-negotiable)

  1. Never cut inside a word — snap every edge to a word boundary, then pad it.
  2. Never re-transcribe an edited file for captions — map original timestamps through the piece table (CAPTIONS.md §2).
  3. Captions burn LAST, after every overlay, with -c:a copy.
  4. Per-segment extract → lossless -c copy concat; identical codec params on every clip; 30ms afades at every boundary.
  5. Cache transcripts per source; never re-transcribe an unchanged file.
  6. No render before the user approves the strategy; no publish without an explicit per-destination "go".
  7. Verify by LOOKING at extracted frames, never by exit code alone.
  8. Captions never burn without a REVIEWED corrections.json — scan_terms.py + full transcript read; empty [] only after the review actually happened.

Quick reference

TaskWhere
Tool installs + verify commandsreferences/SETUP.md
Full pipeline: EDL, fillers, render, burnreferences/EDIT.md
Caption correctness: mapping math, corrections, stylesreferences/CAPTIONS.md
Shorts: selection, layout, hooks, first-frame rulereferences/SHORTS.md
Runnable CLIs (transcribe → EDL → fillers → cut → terms → SRT → shorts)scripts/

Red flags — STOP, you are rationalizing

ThoughtReality
"I'll re-transcribe the edit for captions"~1s drift per cut, compounds. Map through the piece table.
"Burn captions first, overlay after"Overlays hide captions. Silent failure. Captions LAST.
"One-pass filtergraph is simpler"Double-encodes when anything is added. Per-segment + concat.
"The cut sounds fine without fades"Pops at boundaries on headphones. 30ms afades, every edge.
"User is offline, I'll just render"Strategy confirm is blocking. Wait.
"Exit code 0, ship it"Look at the frames. Every self-test is visual.
"The transcript looks clean, skip the term review"ASR errors are systematic, not obvious. Run scan_terms.py and READ.

Upgrade path (optional richer skills, if installed)

  • longform-to-content — webinars/lectures at scale: relayout + PIP, cold open, CTR thumbnails, scheduled publishing.
  • embedded-captions — designed caption identities with subject occlusion.
  • talking-head-recut — kinetic graphic overlay cards (lower-thirds, callouts).

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.