agentleFS
MicrosoftKnown publishermicrosoft/cat-agent-skills/submissions/blog-content-auditor/SKILL.md

blog-content-auditor

Skill95 starsChanged 6 days agoMITView on GitHub

Use this skill when the user asks to audit, review, score, rationalise, prioritise, refresh, or improve blog posts, article libraries, newsletters, or thought-leadership content.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

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

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈5

    Distinctive · estimate

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Use this skill to audit individual blog posts or a wider blog library and produce a prioritised improvement plan.

    line 8
  2. Distinctive:

    Do not invent traffic, ranking, engagement, conversion, recency, or SEO performance data.

    line 23
  3. Distinctive:

    If the user wants performance analysis and no analytics are available, state that analytics were not available and assess editorial quality …

    line 24
  4. Distinctive:

    Read each accessible post fully enough to assess the dimensions.

    line 42
  5. Distinctive:

    If relevant, identify themes missing from the current library.

    line 46

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 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

Blog Content Auditor

Use this skill to audit individual blog posts or a wider blog library and produce a prioritised improvement plan.

Scope options

The skill can handle:

  • A single post supplied as text or a URL.
  • A list of posts supplied by the user.
  • A blog index if the agent has suitable web or content access.
  • Draft posts before publication.
  • Existing thought-leadership libraries that need rationalisation.

Evidence rules

  • Audit only posts that are supplied or accessible.
  • Do not invent traffic, ranking, engagement, conversion, recency, or SEO performance data.
  • If the user wants performance analysis and no analytics are available, state that analytics were not available and assess editorial quality only.
  • Quote or reference specific observed features when justifying recommendations.

Default audit dimensions

Score each post from 0 to 5 for:

  1. Reader promise - Is the post clear about why the reader should care?
  2. Opening strength - Does the opening create relevance quickly?
  3. Argument shape - Is there a coherent point of view, not just a list of observations?
  4. Evidence and examples - Are claims supported by examples, experience, references, or practical detail?
  5. Structure and scanability - Is the post easy to navigate?
  6. Distinctiveness - Does it avoid generic commentary?
  7. Next action - Does the post help the reader think or act differently?

Workflow

  1. Identify the available posts and the audit objective.
  2. Read each accessible post fully enough to assess the dimensions.
  3. Score each dimension with evidence.
  4. Identify content that should be kept, refreshed, merged, expanded, or retired.
  5. Produce a prioritised editorial backlog.
  6. If relevant, identify themes missing from the current library.

Single-post output

## Blog audit summary

Overall score: [x]/5
Recommended action: [Keep / Refresh / Rewrite / Merge / Retire]

## Scorecard

| Dimension | Score /5 | Evidence | Recommended improvement |
|---|---:|---|---|

## Highest-value improvements

1. [Improvement]
2. [Improvement]
3. [Improvement]

## Suggested revised angle

[Suggested angle]

Library output

## Blog library audit summary

| Post | Overall score /5 | Recommended action | Reason |
|---|---:|---|---|

## Priority backlog

| Priority | Post | Action | Rationale | Effort |
|---|---|---|---|---|

## Content gaps

- [Gap]

References

This skill includes supporting reference material. Read the relevant reference file when the task needs additional structure, rubric detail, examples, or checklist support.

  • references/blog-audit-rubric.md - use this when additional structure, examples, or checks are useful for the task.

Quality checklist

Before responding, check:

  • The audit does not claim performance data unless supplied.
  • Recommendations are tied to evidence.
  • The user can see what to improve first.
  • The output separates editorial judgement from measurable analytics.

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.