agentleFS
MicrosoftKnown publishermicrosoft/cat-agent-skills/submissions/blog-post-structure-pass/SKILL.md

blog-post-structure-pass

Skill95 starsChanged 6 days agoMITView on GitHub

Use this skill when the user asks to restructure, reorganise, improve, rewrite, tighten, or strengthen a blog post, article, newsletter, essay, or thought-leadership draft.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

9 rules. About 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈9

    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 improve the structure, argument, flow, and readability of a blog post while preserving the source facts and the author's …

    line 8
  2. Distinctive:

    Do not invent evidence, examples, client stories, dates, results, or quotes.

    line 12
  3. Distinctive:

    Keep the revised post suitable for the intended audience and channel.

    line 15
  4. Distinctive:

    If important evidence is missing, mark it as a gap rather than filling it in.

    line 16
  5. Distinctive:

    Use this skeleton as a guide, not a rigid template:

    line 20
  6. Distinctive:

    Read the source post or draft.

    line 31
  7. Distinctive:

    Create a revised outline.

    line 34
  8. Distinctive:

    If the user asks for the structure only, use:

    line 53
  9. Distinctive:

    No unsupported facts have been added.

    line 82

≈ “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 Post Structure Pass

Use this skill to improve the structure, argument, flow, and readability of a blog post while preserving the source facts and the author's intended point of view.

Core rules

  • Do not invent evidence, examples, client stories, dates, results, or quotes.
  • Preserve the author's stance unless asked to change it.
  • Improve the shape of the argument before polishing sentences.
  • Keep the revised post suitable for the intended audience and channel.
  • If important evidence is missing, mark it as a gap rather than filling it in.

Default post skeleton

Use this skeleton as a guide, not a rigid template:

  1. Hook / tension - Why this matters now.
  2. Problem - What people usually misunderstand or struggle with.
  3. Reframe - The more useful way to think about it.
  4. Practical implications - What changes in decisions, behaviour, governance, delivery, or operations.
  5. Example or proof - Evidence from supplied material.
  6. Takeaway - What the reader should do, question, or remember.

Workflow

  1. Read the source post or draft.
  2. Identify the current thesis and intended audience.
  3. Diagnose structural issues: weak opening, unclear argument, repetition, missing transitions, unsupported claims, premature solutioning, or weak ending.
  4. Create a revised outline.
  5. Rewrite the post into the improved structure.
  6. Preserve factual claims from the source and avoid adding unsupported material.
  7. Provide a short change note only if useful.

Output format

# [Revised title]

[Rewritten post]

---

## Change notes

- [Only include important changes, assumptions, or evidence gaps.]

If the user asks for the structure only, use:

## Recommended structure

1. [Section]
2. [Section]
3. [Section]

## Rationale

[Short explanation]

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/post-structure-patterns.md - use this when additional structure, examples, or checks are useful for the task.

Quality checklist

Before responding, check:

  • The revised post has a clear thesis.
  • The opening creates relevance quickly.
  • The middle develops the argument rather than listing points.
  • The ending lands the insight or next action.
  • No unsupported facts have been added.
  • The copy sounds natural and human.

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.