Skip to main content

x-article-review

Review an article, title, thumbnail, and supporting files for factual support, reader usefulness, and consistency. Use for a publication-readiness check or a focused critique of a draft.

Quellinformationen

Repository
codejunkie99/x-article-skills
Letzte Quellaktivität
7. September 2026 um 10:07
Erkannte Sprache von SKILL.md
Englisch
Sterne
26
Forks
2

Installationsoptionen

Standardmäßig ist der Prompt ausgewählt, der zuerst die Quelle prüft. Sie können zu einem direkten Befehl wechseln oder eine lokale Kopie herunterladen.

Quelldateien prüfen

Lesen Sie SKILL.md und alle von SkillsMP angezeigten Begleitdateien, bevor Sie sich für eine Installation entscheiden.

Datei-Explorer
3 Dateien

SKILL.md wird angezeigt

SKILL.md
Quellanweisungen · Schreibgeschützte Vorschau
name
x-article-review
description
Review an article, title, thumbnail, and supporting files for factual support, reader usefulness, and consistency. Use for a publication-readiness check or a focused critique of a draft.
# X Article Review Review the actual draft and requested assets. Use supplied evidence and verify changing claims through available primary sources where needed. Keep the review proportional to the task; a caption does not require an entire production audit. ## Ask concrete questions - Does the article deliver the title's promise, and does the thumbnail explain the same subject? - Can a reader identify the value in the opening? Does the TLDR give a useful shortcut? - Which claims are demonstrated, firsthand, attributed, estimated, or proposed? Are numbers attached to the correct person and time period? - Where would the intended reader get stuck? Are prerequisites, steps, exact locations, prompts, and expected results sufficient for the promised guide? - Does the visual remain readable at its intended size? Check labels, connectors, crop, hierarchy, and the specified ratio. - Do the files and links included in the handoff exist, open, and support the claims made about them? A style checker cannot prove originality or correctness. A model rating its own draft 10/10 is not a reliable stopping condition. A correlation in post analytics is not proof that a hook or thumbnail caused the result. ## Return useful findings Lead with material issues. For each, identify the passage or asset, why it matters, the evidence or missing evidence, and a concrete correction. Distinguish a required correction from a subjective preference. If a requested check could not be performed, state exactly what remains unverified. When asked to fix, make the authorized edits and check the changed areas. Stop when material issues are resolved; do not loop indefinitely or keep rewriting accepted content. If no material issues remain, say so briefly instead of inventing findings. Publication is a separate action. Do not post, send, or push solely because review was requested; if publication was already explicitly authorized, do not ask for the same permission again. See [review format](references/review-format.md) for a compact evidence-led report.
Auf GitHub ansehen