content-pipeline
Skill97 starsChanged 33 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Turn governed source evidence into a citation-bound reader-facing draft, channel package, and provider-neutral publication handoff.
17 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Kianzzz/Zhouxing-skill-publictheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- LazyIsEfficient/agentic-ostheir own version, first seen Oct 22, 2026
- claude-world/claude-world-studiotheir own version, first seen Oct 22, 2026
- Aravind7262/content-pipelinetheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- pobsteta/aigoratheir own version, first seen Oct 2, 2026
- JingHao-Leon/fde-case-labtheir own version, first seen Sep 13, 2026
Other versions17 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 17
- OrangeViolin/content-pipeline★ 217same name
- fivetaku/content-pipeline★ 100same name
- claude-world/claude-world-studio★ 71same name
- coopersimson96/ai-content-system★ 17same name
- LazyIsEfficient/agentic-os★ 17same name
- zad111ak-ai/hermes-agent-skills★ 7same name
- Kianzzz/Zhouxing-skill-public★ 4same name
- PingPingE/ai-content-agents★ 2same name
- rami-maalouf/skills★ 2same name
- ahnchen1983/agentic-substrate★ 1same name
7 more not listed
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 repository94 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- llms.txtllms.txt
- runxSkill
- adopt-skillSkill
- agencySkill
- answer-from-docsSkill
- attention-reviewSkill
- audit-receiptSkill
- brand-voiceSkill
- business-opsSkill
- chargeSkill
- chief-of-staffSkill
- cold-outreachSkill
- contract-drafterSkill
- conversation-replySkill
- conversation-reviewSkill
- crm-cleanupSkill
- cve-auditSkill
- data-storeSkill
- data-subject-requestSkill
- deep-researchSkill
- diagnose-skill-runSkill
- dispute-respondSkill
- ecosystem-briefSkill
- extractSkill
- ghostwriteSkill
- github-pr-commentSkill
- github-pr-reviewSkill
- github-syncSkill
- google-analyticsSkill
- google-calendarSkill
- google-search-consoleSkill
- governed-outboundSkill
- helpdeskSkill
- incident-commanderSkill
- issue-intakeSkill
- issue-to-prSkill
- issue-triageSkill
- knowledge-routerSkill
- lead-enrichmentSkill
- lead-qualifySkill
- least-privilegeSkill
- ledgerSkill
- list-hygiene-judgeSkill
- marketplace-invokeSkill
- meeting-followupSkill
- mock-chargeSkill
- mock-paySkill
- mock-refundSkill
- moltbookSkill
- n8n-handoffSkill
- nitrosendSkill
- nws-weather-forecastSkill
- open-meteo-weather-forecastSkill
- operator-inboxSkill
- ops-deskSkill
- organic-growthSkill
- policy-authorSkill
- postmortem-makerSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 11 edited versions we read keep these.
4
Distinctive
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
- Distinctive: line 12
Use it for articles, updates, newsletters, explainers, and other channel-bound content whose substantive claims need traceable support.
- Distinctive: line 61
Stop before drafting when the source packet is missing or invalid.
- Distinctive: line 62
Do not turn operator context, campaign intent, or a target URL into evidence.
- Distinctive: line 64
Do not add delivery or publication evidence to a local package.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 11 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.
Files
Content Pipeline
This is the standard preparation lane for researched content. It keeps evidence, writing, packaging, and external delivery distinct so an operator can inspect one concrete artifact and no local success is mistaken for publication.
Use it for articles, updates, newsletters, explainers, and other channel-bound content whose substantive claims need traceable support. The result should do something for the reader—clarify a decision, explain a change, establish trust, or enable a concrete next step—not merely prove that research happened.
Composes
<!-- Generated from the native execution closure; run pnpm core-skills:composes:generate. -->ghostwrite#draftghostwrite#handoffghostwrite#packageresearch#research
How the chain works
- The caller provides the objective, audience, channel, and governed source
packets. Usually those packets come from
web-fetchor a provider reader. researchadmits the sources, verifies citations, and decides whether the evidence supports a useful deliverable.ghostwritedrafts only from the admitted claims and digests, applying any supplied voice or operator context without treating it as factual evidence.- The validated draft is packaged deterministically for the declared channel.
- A provider-neutral handoff records the target and approval requirement. The lane stops before external delivery.
Local research, drafting, and packaging require no approval. A later provider skill owns the consequential gate, idempotency, send or publish request, acknowledgement, and readback.
Inputs and result
objectivestates what the content should change for its reader.source_packetscontain bounded governed evidence.audience,channel, anddomainshape the artifact.operator_contextandtarget_entitiesnarrow interpretation but are not source evidence.publication_targetandboundary_kind(internalorexternal) prepare the next lane; they do not authorize it. An external delivery needs the delivering lane's own approval.
The result preserves the citation-validated research packet, the evidence-bound
draft, a deterministic channel package with not_sent state, and a
provider-neutral handoff. needs_more_evidence, needs_review, and
not_worth_publishing are valid terminal states when the topic is unsupported,
stale, duplicative, or unhelpful.
Stop conditions
- Stop before drafting when the source packet is missing or invalid.
- Do not turn operator context, campaign intent, or a target URL into evidence.
- Withhold any draft whose material claim cannot be tied to an admitted digest.
- Do not add delivery or publication evidence to a local package.
- Route the exact accepted artifact into the relevant provider lane instead of rebuilding it there.
Example
An operator wants a blog post explaining a new governance boundary. The lane can validate official docs and receipt evidence, draft for engineering readers, package the accepted body for the blog, and prepare a CMS handoff. It cannot say the post is live until an approved CMS operation and provider readback prove it.
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.

