social-reply
Skill8 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Triage a pasted batch of comments, mentions, and DMs from LinkedIn, X, Instagram, Facebook, or Threads, and draft on-voice replies where they're warranted. Use when the user says "help me reply", asks you to "draft responses to these comments", says "triage my mentions", or asks you to "answer these DMs". Each item gets bucketed as question, praise, objection, lead signal, or troll/spam, assigned a recommended action — reply, react-only, DM, or ignore — and, where a reply is warranted, a draft written in the user's voice. It reads social-context.md for brand voice, product facts, and escalation boundaries so replies sound like the user and never invent answers. Lead signals get flagged prominently with a suggested next step; legally or PR-sensitive items get escalated with a reason, not drafted.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Scino/fstacktheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- Scino/fstack★ 18same 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 repository15 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- idkSkill
- social-adSkill
- social-auditSkill
- social-calendarSkill
- social-carouselSkill
- social-checkSkill
- social-contextSkill
- social-crosspostSkill
- social-hookSkill
- social-postSkill
- social-repurposeSkill
- social-threadSkill
- social-voiceSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 73
Never invent product facts, prices, or capabilities — if context doesn't have the answer, say so and ask the user.
- Distinctive: line 74
Never promise timelines or roadmap items that aren't in context.
- Very specific: line 75
Never draft full replies for ESCALATE items — a holding line at most, and only when silence would look worse.
- Very specific: line 76
Every ignore and every ESCALATE carries its one-line reason.
- Distinctive: line 77
No two adjacent drafts open with the same word.
≈ “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.
Files
Turn a raw batch of comments, mentions, and DMs into a triaged worklist with on-voice reply drafts — leads flagged first, trolls dismissed with reasons.
Context
Read social-context.md at the project root (also check .agents/social-context.md) for the ## Voice rules and the ## Never list — replies must sound like the user and stay inside the red lines. Product facts (pricing, roadmap, what you may confirm) and who handles escalations are not in that file, so ask for them directly the first time they matter. If social-context.md is missing, offer to run the social-context skill first, but don't block — ask 2–3 quick inline questions and proceed:
- How formal is your reply voice — emoji or none, first names or handles?
- Anything you must never promise or confirm (roadmap dates, discounts, integrations)?
- Who handles escalations (legal, refunds, press), and what's your next step for a warm lead — call link, DM, trial invite?
Workflow
- Parse the batch. Number every item. Preserve the author handle, platform, and channel (public comment vs DM) where given — the same words deserve a different reply in public than in private. If items are ambiguous or truncated, note it on the item rather than guessing intent.
- Bucket each item into exactly one of:
- question — wants information;
- praise — positive, no ask;
- objection — pushback, skepticism, competitor comparison, complaint;
- lead signal — buying intent: "is there a trial?", "does it work for teams?", pricing questions, "how do I get started", asking to be contacted;
- troll/spam — bad faith, off-topic promotion, bait. Intent outranks form: a pricing question is a lead signal, not a question; a complaint from a paying customer is an objection, not a troll, no matter the tone.
- Order the worklist by priority: leads first, then questions, then objections, then praise; trolls/spam last. Within leads, order by strength of intent — "where do I sign up" beats "interesting, might look at this".
- Assign an action per item:
reply— a public answer adds value for onlookers too; default for questions, objections, and leads.react-only— a like/heart is enough; default for short praise, where a written "Thank you so much!!" adds nothing.DM— move to private: anything needing account details, pricing negotiation, or a lead worth a direct conversation. Still reply publicly first with one line ("Answered you in DMs — short version: yes") so onlookers see responsiveness.ignore— trolls/spam, always with a one-line why addressed to the user, e.g. "engagement bait; replying boosts the thread's ranking, not yours".
- Draft replies where warranted. In the user's voice: short, human, specific to what the person actually said. The first line responds to their words, not a template. Banned: corporate padding ("Thanks for reaching out!", "Great question!"), exclamation-mark inflation, restating their question back at them, and signing off like an email. Public replies ≤ 2–3 sentences; DMs may run slightly longer and must end with one clear next step.
- Handle objections with substance. Concede what's true, correct what's false with a fact from context, never argue tone. If the objection is valid and context has no counter-fact, the honest reply is "fair — here's what we're doing about it", or a flag to the user that they must supply the answer. Never invent capabilities, dates, or policies to win a thread.
- Flag every lead prominently. Mark it
LEADat the top of the worklist with three parts:- the intent evidence — quote their exact words;
- the suggested next step from context — send the call link, offer the trial, move to DM;
- a reply draft that executes the step without being pushy: answer their actual question first, invite second.
- Escalate, don't draft, the dangerous ones. Legal threats, refund/chargeback disputes, safety or harassment reports, press/journalist inquiries, anything touching an individual's private data, and public accusations that could become a PR moment. Mark
ESCALATE, give the one-line why, name who should handle it (from what the user told you; ask if you don't know), and draft at most a holding line ("Taking this seriously — following up with you directly") for cases where public silence would look worse than acknowledgment. - Sanity-pass the drafts as a set. Read all the replies together. If ten of them open with the same word or lean on the same phrase, vary them — people read whole comment sections, and copy-paste warmth reads as neither warm nor human. Check the set against every voice rule and the Never list, and against every row of the Quality bar — the default action, reply length, and opener for each bucket, plus the hard rules.
Quality bar
| Bucket | Default action | Reply length | Draft opens with |
| Lead signal | Reply, then DM next step | ≤ 3 sentences public | Their actual question, answered |
| Question | Reply | ≤ 3 sentences | The answer itself, not a preamble |
| Objection | Reply | ≤ 3 sentences | The concession or the correcting fact |
| Praise | React-only; reply if substantive | 1 sentence | Something specific from their comment |
| Troll/spam | Ignore | — | — (one-line why, addressed to the user) |
Hard rules:
- Never invent product facts, prices, or capabilities — if context doesn't have the answer, say so and ask the user.
- Never promise timelines or roadmap items that aren't in context.
- Never draft full replies for
ESCALATEitems — a holding line at most, and only when silence would look worse. - Every
ignoreand everyESCALATEcarries its one-line reason; unexplained skips erode the user's trust in the triage. - No two adjacent drafts open with the same word; the set must read as a person, not a macro.
- Tone-match the item: a joke gets a light reply, a frustrated customer gets a straight one — the voice rules set the range, the item picks the point.
Deliverable
A prioritized worklist: each item numbered with author/platform, bucket, action, and — where warranted — the reply draft ready to paste, with LEAD and ESCALATE items visually prominent at the top of their sections. Each entry reads like:
LEAD — #7, @mariab (X, public comment) — "does this work for agencies managing 10 clients?" Action: reply, then DM. Next step: send the team-plan trial link. Draft: "It does — multi-client is the main reason agencies pick us. DMing you a trial link so you can test it on a real client."
Close with a two-line batch summary: counts per bucket, and the number of leads worth same-day follow-up. The user reviews, edits, and posts the replies themselves — hand the worklist back and stop.
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.

