transcript-to-content

name

transcript-to-content

description

Transform transcripts, conversations, or raw notes into shareable content — either multiple social posts OR a single long-form article. Learns style from user's published content. Handles transcripts of any length (tested up to 5500+ lines / 90+ min). Use when user: (1) provides transcript/conversation/recording and wants social content, (2) asks to "turn recording/notes into posts", (3) mentions generating content from recordings/notes, (4) needs multiple publishable pieces from single source, (5) asks to write an article from a transcript — e.g. "write an article/long-form", "organize into an article", "write up this session", "turn this talk into a blog post", "deep dive". Social mode outputs 2-15 ready-to-publish pieces. Article mode outputs a structured long-form piece (3000-10000+ chars) written section-by-section.

Transcript to Content Generator

Transform raw content (transcripts, conversations, notes) into ready-to-publish content — social posts or long-form articles.

Step 0: Determine Mode

Before doing anything else, decide which mode to use:

• Article Mode — if user says "write an article / long-form / article / write up / blog post", OR the transcript is a structured talk/sharing/interview with a clear narrative arc. Jump to Long-form Article Mode.
• Social Post Mode — for everything else (extracting multiple standalone posts). Continue with Step 1 below.

If unclear, ask the user: "Do you want multiple social posts, or one cohesive article?"

---

Social Post Mode

Step 1: Receive Input

Accept two inputs:

• Required: Raw content (transcript, conversation, notes)
• Style: Auto-loaded from saved profile, OR provided by user

Style resolution order (IMPORTANT — check before asking user):

1. Check for saved style profile first: Read style-profiles/default.md AND style-profiles/default-samples.md (relative to this skill's directory). If they exist, load both silently — the summary for rules, the samples for voice and rhythm. Do NOT ask user for reference content.
2. User provides new reference content in this session: Analyze it (see below) and offer to save/update the profile.
3. User specifies a named profile: e.g. "use formal style" → load style-profiles/formal.md
4. No profile exists AND no reference provided: Ask user: "Do you have 2-5 examples of content you've published that you like? This helps me match your style. I'll save it so you won't need to provide it again."
5. User declines: Use neutral professional tone with clear structure.

When analyzing reference content (new or for saving), extract:

• Information density (data-heavy / case-heavy / opinion-heavy)
• Language style (formal / casual / sharp / moderate)
• Structure observation (CRITICAL):
  • Does it use bold subheadings? How many?
  • Does it use numbered lists (1. 2. 3.)?
  • Average paragraph length (1-2 lines / 3-4 lines / longer)?
  • Opening style (direct statement / data / story / question)?
  • Use of emojis, formatting, links?
• Attitude markers (explicit judgment / emotional words / teaching tone)
• Platform conventions (Twitter threads, LinkedIn posts, blog-style, etc.)

Step 2: Extract All Possible Content

Identify content at 4 levels:

1. Short insights (20-150 characters) - Standalone observations or quotes
2. Phenomenon posts (150-300 characters) - Interesting observations with brief analysis
3. Medium posts (300-600 characters) - Complete logical argument with 3-4 supporting points
4. Deep analysis (600-1000 characters) - Complex multi-dimensional analysis

List all possibilities without filtering yet.

For transcripts >1000 lines: Follow the length-based processing strategy in references/long-transcript-strategy.md. The core principle: memory is lossy compression — verify facts in real-time using Grep, don't write from memory. For transcripts >3000 lines, the two-pass index-retrieval workflow is MANDATORY.

Step 3: Deduplicate and Prioritize

Deduplication rules:

• If a point can expand into a full post, don't make it a standalone insight
• Use each point only once - don't repeat in both long post and short insight
• Same material can appear in different posts, but with different roles

Prioritization criteria:

• Counter-intuitive insights > common observations
• Specific data with comparisons > abstract descriptions
• Complete material > needs supplementing
• Universal insights > niche/insider-only content

Determine output quantity based on content richness:

• Rich content (90+ min, multiple topics): 10-15 total posts
• Medium content (30-90 min, 2-3 topics): 6-10 total posts
• Light content (<30 min, 1 topic): 2-4 total posts

These are guidelines, not hard caps. Better to extract comprehensively upfront than in multiple rounds.

Output structure:

• Sort ALL content by quality (highest first)
• Write FULL content for all posts, not just outlines
• Let user decide what to publish

Insights (short standalone pieces) quantity is NOT predetermined:

• Apply strict 4 Iron Rules filtering to ALL candidates
• Output as many as pass the standard (could be 0, 1, 5, or 10)
• Quality standard is fixed, quantity is the natural result

If content is too personal or lacks universal value, tell user honestly.

Step 3.5: Verify All Proper Nouns (MANDATORY for transcripts)

If input is a transcript (voice-to-text), verify all proper nouns BEFORE writing any content. Transcripts have extremely high error rates for names due to mishearing.

See references/proper-noun-verification.md for the full workflow. Key steps:

1. Extract all proper nouns (people, companies, products)
2. Verify each via web search before writing content
3. Create a replacement list and apply corrections with replace_all=true
4. Skip only if input is written text (not transcript) or has no proper nouns

Step 4: Write Content

For each piece:

1. Choose appropriate length based on topic complexity

2. Match user's style from saved profile or reference content:

   • If style profile is loaded (saved or session-provided), mirror their paragraph length, formatting, opening style, and tone
   • If no style available: mobile-first, short paragraphs (2-4 lines), lead with most compelling point

3. "Delete Until Impossible" Execution:

   First pass - Delete structural fluff:

   • Delete unnecessary formatting (unless user's style uses it)
   • Delete transition sentences between sections
   • Delete summary conclusions that just repeat what was said

   Second pass - Test each sentence:

   • Ask: "If I delete this sentence, does the logic break?"
   • If logic doesn't break -> DELETE
   • If it's just repeating the previous point -> DELETE
   • If it's an obvious statement everyone knows -> DELETE

   Third pass - Check structure:

   • Does structure feel natural or forced?
   • If it reads like a PowerPoint -> REWRITE without visible structure
   • Logic should flow through content, not through formatting

4. Follow core principles:

   • One theme per piece - don't try to cover everything
   • Logic > case studies - use cases only as evidence
   • Match user's style if reference provided
   • Have attitude - make clear judgments, don't hedge excessively

5. For short insights (STRICT FILTERING):

   • 4 Iron Rules - ALL must pass:
     • Independence: Can be understood without context (max 1-2 sentences setup)
     • Completeness: Full meaning, not half a sentence
     • Impact: Data/contrast/counter-intuitive/emotional resonance
     • Non-duplication: Not already covered in a longer post
   • If none pass all 4 tests -> Output "No suitable standalone insights found"
   • See references/golden-sentence-standards.md for examples

6. Check against quality standards:

   • See references/writing-checklist.md for complete checklist

7. Verify data points (CRITICAL):

Step 5: Batch Output

Output format:

Extracted X pieces of shareable content from your transcript, sorted by quality:

---

## Content 1 | Title

[Complete content - ready to publish]

---

## Content 2 | Title

[Complete content]

---

[Continue with all content...]

IMPORTANT:

• NO category headers or labels
• Sort ALL content by quality (highest first), regardless of type or length
• Clean markdown only - each piece separated by ---
• Each piece header format: ## Content X | Title (concise title summarizing the topic)
• DO NOT include meta-information (priority, engagement predictions, recommendations)
• Output should be CLEAN and READY-TO-PUBLISH

After output, ask: "How do these look? Need any adjustments?"

---

Long-form Article Mode

When the transcript is a structured talk, interview, or sharing session with a clear narrative arc, the user may want a single deep article instead of multiple social posts. This mode produces a cohesive long-form piece (3000-10000+ characters) written section-by-section into a markdown file.

When to Use This Mode

• User says "write an article" / "long-form article" / "turn this into an article" / "write up this session"
• Transcript is a structured talk/sharing/interview (not casual chat)
• Content has a clear narrative arc (why -> how -> what happened)

Article Workflow

Phase 1: Read, Compress, Outline

1. Read all source material — transcript + any supplementary notes/references mentioned

   Multi-source ASR handling (CRITICAL when multiple transcripts are provided):

   When multiple transcript sources are provided (e.g., raw recording transcript + chat summary), both may contain ASR errors. Resolution principles:

   Source	Weight	Purpose
   User Dictionary	Highest	Authoritative source for proper nouns, product names, and terminology
   Cross-document Verification	High	Content appearing in both sources has higher credibility
   Contextual Semantic Logic	Primary	Whether a term makes sense in its surrounding context
   Single-document Claims	Verify	Content appearing in only one document must be verified against context

   Must NOT do:

   • Do NOT assume raw transcript automatically outranks summary — both are ASR, both may have errors
   • Do NOT adopt a claim just because it appears in the summary — summaries can also mishear
   • Do NOT supplement "background info" from model knowledge into the main text — only content from the conversation belongs in the article; model-supplied company/industry data goes in appendix labeled "source: not from conversation"

   Common judgment cases:

   • Both write "o1 model" but context is about an open-source project → check user dictionary for matching entries, then verify context
   • Summary says "OpenAI Completions API", original says "opengl" (obvious ASR error) → use dictionary + context to determine actual meaning
   • Neither document has the term, context makes no sense → flag as questionable or note in appendix

2. Compress into structured notes — Write a notes.md file in the same directory as the article. This is the critical intermediate step that prevents quality decay in later sections. For each major topic in the transcript, capture:

   • Core argument (1-2 sentences)
   • Key facts (specific data, names, examples)
   • Quotable lines (vivid/emotional/opinionated — pre-select 2-3 per topic)
   • Source type (structured presentation / Q&A discussion / personal story) — this directly feeds Phase 2.5's rewrite intensity

Phase 2: Section-by-Section Writing

1. Write into a .md file incrementally — one section at a time, appending via Edit tool
2. Each section should be self-contained — complete before moving to next
3. Verify facts per section — Grep the transcript for exact quotes and details before writing each section
4. Mark completed sections — use TodoWrite to track progress across sections
5. Classify source material before writing each section — see Quality Control below

Why section-by-section?

• Prevents context overflow on long articles
• Lets user review and adjust tone/style early (after first 1-2 sections)
• Avoids losing all work if a single large write fails
• User can make corrections mid-stream that inform subsequent sections
• Prevents tail-end quality decay — when multiple sections are written in a single generation, the last sections degrade to near-transcription. Strict one-section-per-Edit avoids this.

Phase 2.5: Quality Control Per Section

Before writing each section, classify its source material:

Source type	Rewrite intensity	What to do
Structured presentation (tool walkthrough, step-by-step demo)	Light — has natural logic skeleton	Tighten language, remove filler, preserve structure
Q&A / open discussion (opinions, philosophy, audience questions)	Heavy — oral, scattered, repetitive	Extract core argument first, then write from the argument, not from the transcript
Anecdotes / personal stories	Medium — vivid but rambling	Keep emotional texture, cut circular narration

Q&A and discussion sections are the #1 source of quality decay. They sound coherent when spoken but read terribly when transcribed. For these sections:

1. Don't write from the transcript directly. First distill the speaker's argument into 2-3 bullet points.
2. Then write the section from those bullets, pulling in specific quotes only for texture.
3. Grep-verify every claim — don't trust your memory of what was said.

Oral residue self-check: After writing a section, scan for filler words: " fillers (e.g., 就是/然后/其实 in Chinese, like/then/actually in English) (filler words in Chinese transcripts, analogous to like/then/actually/maybe/you know/right in English)". If a single paragraph contains 3+ of these, the passage hasn't been sufficiently rewritten — it's still transcript, not article. Rewrite it.

Phase 3: Polish

• Apply user's style corrections across the full article
• Global find-and-replace for naming conventions (e.g. real name -> nickname)
• Remove meta-commentary fluff (see Content Principles below)
• Terminology normalization: Replace jargon abbreviations with full terms (e.g. RD→R&D, PM→Product Manager). Align repeated terms to one consistent form throughout (e.g. if both "Web Coding" and "Vibe Coding" appear, pick the industry-standard term and use it everywhere)
• ASR homophone sweep (MANDATORY for transcripts): Beyond proper nouns, scan for common ASR mishearings — homophones (market cap→value, spend→direct output), word-boundary errors (can ya use→can use), and phonetic transliterations of English terms (e.g. "Figma mei"→"Figma Make"). Read suspicious words in context and Grep-verify against nearby sentences
• De-date: Prefer relative time references (Wednesday, last week, earlier) over specific calendar dates (March 11, 2026) unless the date itself is newsworthy. Specific dates age the article and add no value

Phase 4: Pre-delivery QA (MANDATORY before sending to user)

Before delivering any version, read the entire piece and check these four items:

1. Fact check: Does every specific attribution ("John said", "Alice's analysis") match the source document? Did anyone's words get misattributed?
2. Repetition: Does the same story/case/opinion appear in multiple sections? (Common: product evolution story → methodology section → industry insight section — same case told three times)
3. ASR residue: Any semantically broken sentences? Read every quoted passage to check if it sounds like something a real person would say
4. Unsourced content: Did model-supplied background knowledge (company funding data, industry stats, product specs) leak into the article? If so, move to appendix and label "source: not from conversation"

After reading through, proceed to version archiving.

Version Management (MANDATORY)

After each round of edits, save the current state as a versioned file. Version numbers go in filenames so users can tell the version from the name.

Rules:

• Initial draft from subagents = _v1.md
• After each round of corrections: increment version → _v2.md, _v3.md, etc.
• The no-suffix file is a working draft only — never send it to the user; always send a versioned file
• The highest version number = the latest version

Naming convention:

{basename}_v{N}.md

Example: speaker_topic_20260321_v1.md → _v2.md → _v5.md

When to create a new version (AFTER edits complete):

• After user's correction round is fully applied
• After any global find-and-replace or restructuring
• Before sending a file to the user — always send a versioned copy

Implementation: After finishing a round of edits, save with the next version number:

cp outputs/article.md outputs/article_v2.md

Send article_v2.md to the user, continue editing article.md for next round.

Heading Structure Logic

First-level headings (##) = Major narrative arcs, limit to 4-6 max.

If your outline has 8-10 major topics, you have too many first-level headings. Consolidate:

Raw topics	->	Structured headings
8-10 topics at same level	->	4-5 first-level (##) with 2-3 second-level (###) each

Decision rules:

• Use ## (first-level) for distinct phases of the narrative — e.g. "Why change", "How to change", "What happened after"
• Use ### (second-level) for specific topics within a phase — e.g. under "How to change": tool choice, workflow steps, design system tips
• Intro and conclusion are ## level but typically have NO sub-headings
• Middle sections (the meaty parts) should have 2-3 ### sub-headings each
• If a section has only 1 sub-heading, it doesn't need sub-headings — just write it as a single section

Heading format: ## headings use descriptive phrases only (NO Chinese numbering). ### headings use Arabic numbering (1. 2. 3.), restarting within each ## section.

Example structure:

## Introduction (no sub-headings)
## Why Change (narrative arc 1)
  ### 1. Tool Evolution
  ### 2. Workflow Pain Points
  ### 3. Turning Point
## How to Change (narrative arc 2)
  ### 1. Tool Selection
  ### 2. Practical Workflow
  ### 3. Design System
## After the Change (narrative arc 3)
  ### 1. Collaboration Model
  ### 2. Aesthetic
  ### 3. Future of Roles
## Action Items (short, no sub-headings)
## Conclusion (short, no sub-headings)

Content Principles for Long-form Articles

1. Content over meta-commentary.

The article's value is the IDEAS, not who said them during the session. Remove:

• "During the Q&A session, a PM named XX asked a question: ..."
• "I also shared my own observations during the session."
• "A participant asked a very representative question during the session"

Replace with direct content: present the question/topic directly, weave observations naturally.

2. Consistent naming.

• Use the speaker's preferred name/nickname throughout (not alternating real name and nickname)
• Establish the name once in the intro, then use it consistently
• Apply via replace_all=true if user requests a name change

3. Narrator perspective and attribution thinning.

• The article has a narrator (usually the host/organizer) writing in first person
• The main speaker's content is presented in third person with direct quotes
• When narrator shares their own experience, use first person naturally
• Attribution thinning (CRITICAL): "Alice says/Alice thinks/she believes" should appear at most 2-3 times per major section, NOT at every paragraph start. When the context already makes clear who is speaking, drop the attribution entirely. Bad: "Alice believes finding references is something every designer can do". Good: "Finding references is something every designer can do". After writing, do a sweep: if 3+ consecutive paragraphs start with speaker attribution, thin them out

4. Direct quotes for texture.

• Use > "quoted text" for the speaker's most vivid, personal statements
• These should be moments of genuine voice — emotional, funny, or deeply opinionated
• Don't quote mundane statements — only quote what adds texture
• 2-3 direct quotes per major section is a good rhythm

5. Tool/product descriptions — compress, don't transcribe.

• When the transcript walks through a tool or website feature-by-feature, do NOT transcribe the walkthrough. Distill to 1-2 sentences capturing the core value proposition
• Bad: "It doesn't just present a visual design, it has many sub-features — you can view the login flow step by step, with diagrams. There's also a Flows tab..." (transcribing the demo)
• Good: "It presents design schemes and lets you interact with flows directly, even circling key motion elements to analyze design thinking." (core value in one sentence)
• This applies to: tool recommendations, website intros, feature walkthroughs, skill descriptions

6. Supplementary references.

• If the transcript mentions websites, tools, or resources, fetch them for additional context
• Use WebFetch to get the actual content from URLs mentioned
• This enriches the article with details the speaker may have glossed over verbally

---

Style Profile Management

Style profiles are saved in style-profiles/ (relative to this skill's directory) and persist across sessions.

Saving a Style Profile

When user provides reference content (or says "save my style"):

1. Analyze the reference content using the style extraction dimensions from Step 1
2. Save TWO files:

File 1: style-profiles/default.md — Style analysis summary

# Style Profile: [Name]

Saved: [date]
Source: [brief description of reference content, e.g. "3 Jike posts about tech/AI"]

## Information Density
[data-heavy / case-heavy / opinion-heavy — with specifics]

## Language Style
[formal / casual / sharp / moderate — with vocabulary examples from the original posts]

## Structure
- Bold subheadings: [yes/no, frequency]
- Numbered lists: [yes/no, when used]
- Paragraph length: [1-2 lines / 3-4 lines / longer]
- Opening style: [direct statement / data / story / question]
- Emojis/formatting: [usage pattern]

## Attitude & Tone
[explicit judgment / restrained / humorous / analytical — with examples]

## Platform
[Jike / Twitter / LinkedIn / WeChat / blog — conventions observed]

## Key Patterns
[2-5 specific patterns unique to this user's writing, e.g. "ends posts with a provocative question", "uses 「」for emphasis instead of bold", "inserts English terms naturally in Chinese text"]

File 2: style-profiles/default-samples.md — 2-3 complete original posts

# Style Samples

These are the user's actual published posts. Read them every time to internalize the voice, rhythm, and word choices — not just the rules.

---

## Sample 1

[Full text of the post, unmodified]

---

## Sample 2

[Full text of the post, unmodified]

---

## Sample 3 (optional)

[Full text of the post, unmodified]

Why both files? The summary captures rules (paragraph length, structure, tone). But rules alone produce mechanical imitation. The samples provide the actual voice — sentence rhythm, word choices, how transitions land, specific humor or sharpness. Read both every time.

3. Confirm to user: "Style profile saved (analysis summary + original samples). Will auto-load on future runs — no need to provide references again."

Updating a Profile

User says "update my style" + provides new reference content → overwrite both default.md and default-samples.md.

Multiple Profiles

User can maintain multiple profiles:

• "Save as formal style" → saves to style-profiles/formal.md + formal-samples.md
• "Use formal style" → loads style-profiles/formal.md + formal-samples.md instead of default
• "Switch style" → list available profiles and let user choose

Deleting a Profile

User says "reset my style" → delete the profile file, revert to asking for references.

---

Common Adjustments

If user says:

• "Too long" -> Condense to target length
• "Can't understand this" -> Add simple background context
• "Wrong style/tone" -> Adjust to match their preference
• "Want more" -> Extract additional angles from transcript
• "Not enough short insights" -> Find more (but maintain quality standards)

Key Principles

1. Always batch output - Write all qualified content upfront, don't ask which to write first
2. Quality > quantity - Don't force output if material is weak
3. Clean output only - No meta-information in final output
4. Fact check everything - Verify names, data, and facts before outputting (transcripts have errors)
5. Match user's style - Learn from reference content if provided
6. Strict insight filtering - Quality standard is fixed, quantity is natural result (see golden-sentence-standards.md)
7. Delete until impossible - Every sentence must advance the logic
8. No teaching tone - Provide frameworks, don't preach
9. No anxiety farming - Provide insights, don't manufacture panic
10. Have attitude - Make clear judgments, don't hedge excessively

Reference Files

Topic	File
Insight quality standards	references/golden-sentence-standards.md
Writing checklist	references/writing-checklist.md
Long transcript processing	references/long-transcript-strategy.md
Proper noun verification	references/proper-noun-verification.md
Technical troubleshooting	references/troubleshooting.md
Style profiles (persistent)	style-profiles/