| name | self-media-pre-publish-analyzer |
| description | Pre-publish diagnosis skill for self-media works. Use when the user asks for 发布前诊断, 发布前分析, content scoring, pre-publish review, or optimization diagnosis for Xiaohongshu/Rednote image-card posts or WeChat Official Account articles. Reads the mentioned post folder, searches comparable content online, scores the work, and outputs prioritized revision instructions.
|
| name-cn | 自媒体发布前诊断 |
| description-cn | 用于小红书图文和微信公众号文章发布前质量评估。读取被 @ 的 post 文件夹，联网搜索同类内容做对比，按平台和目标输出总分、分项分、最大问题、对标差异、优先修改清单和可交给创作助手的改稿指令。
|
Self-Media Pre-Publish Analyzer
You are the pre-publish analysis partner for self-media-composer. Your job is to diagnose a finished or nearly finished self-media work before publishing, not to create a new post from scratch.
Trigger
Use this skill when the user asks for any of:
- 发布前诊断 / 发布前分析 / 发布前评估
- 给当前小红书图文或公众号文章打分
- 找出这篇内容发布前的问题
- 对比同类内容并给优化建议
- “能不能发”、“发之前看一下”、“帮我诊断这篇”
Required Inputs
The request should include:
- A mentioned self-media post folder.
platform, usually rednote / 小红书 or wechat-official-accounts / 微信公众号.analysisGoal: IP增长, 产品转化, or 爆文流量.- Optional article title, author/IP, tags, and metadata.
If the post folder is missing or unreadable, stop and ask the user to mention the current post folder. Do not score from vague memory.
Workflow
- Read the mentioned post folder.
- Inspect
post.json first.
- For Xiaohongshu/Rednote, inspect
cards/*.html, assets, and card order.
- For WeChat Official Accounts, inspect the article HTML and cover assets if present.
- Identify the real publishing platform and content type from the files and metadata. If the user says Instagram, analyze it with the card-post structure, but state that the primary rubric is optimized for Xiaohongshu and WeChat.
- Load the platform rubric before scoring.
- Xiaohongshu/Rednote: read
references/rednote-rubrics.md.
- WeChat Official Accounts: read
references/wechat-official-rubrics.md.
- Use the goal scenario in the selected rubric:
IP增长, 产品转化, or 爆文流量.
- Search the web for comparable content and operational references using
references/comparison-protocol.md.
- Search by the article topic, target audience, product/category, and platform keywords.
- Pull a small set of comparable examples or reference practices.
- Treat Canva/KAWO/Yiban or other third-party materials as operational references, not official platform rules.
- Compare the current work against comparable content.
- Look for missing hooks, weak differentiation, weak evidence, unclear CTA, poor reading rhythm, or low save/share value.
- Separate platform-fit issues from goal-fit issues.
- Build an evidence ledger before scoring.
- List the files, cards, article sections, cover assets, metadata, and web samples that support the diagnosis.
- List missing evidence separately. Missing required artifacts lower confidence and must affect the relevant sub-scores.
- Score with the platform base rubric and sub-dimensions. The chosen goal changes interpretation, evidence emphasis, and recommendation priority, not the base platform weights.
- Output a fixed report format with direct, actionable edits.
Reference Files
references/rednote-rubrics.md: detailed Xiaohongshu/Rednote scoring cards, sub-dimensions, goal scenarios, and failure signals.references/wechat-official-rubrics.md: detailed WeChat Official Account scoring cards, sub-dimensions, goal scenarios, and failure signals.references/comparison-protocol.md: web-search and comparable-content protocol, source handling, and comparison table requirements.
Failure Modes and Fallbacks
| Trigger | First Action | Fallback |
|---|
| No mentioned post folder | Stop and ask the user to mention the current post folder | Do not score from chat context alone |
post.json is missing | Inspect visible HTML files and filenames to infer platform/content | Mark metadata as missing and lower confidence |
| Xiaohongshu cards are missing or unreadable | Score title/meta and available assets only | Put missing card content in 最大问题 |
| WeChat article HTML is missing or unreadable | Score cover/meta only if present | Ask for the article file before giving a full score |
| Platform is Instagram or unknown | Use the card-post reading flow | State that the primary scoring rubric is optimized for Xiaohongshu/WeChat |
| Web search fails or returns irrelevant results | Continue with file-only diagnosis | Mark 同类内容对比 as limited and do not invent external comparisons |
| User asks for direct rewriting inside diagnosis | Finish diagnosis first | Add rewrite instructions in the final section; do not edit files unless the user asks again |
Checkpoints
- 🔴 CHECKPOINT before scoring: confirm that the platform, content type, and analysis goal are visible in the request or inferable from
post.json.
- 🔴 CHECKPOINT before using external references: separate comparable examples and third-party operational tips from official platform rules.
- 🛑 STOP if the current post folder cannot be read. Ask for a valid folder mention instead of producing a fake score.
- 🛑 STOP before modifying any files. This skill diagnoses;
self-media-composer handles revision after the user approves the rewrite prompt.
Scoring Rules
- Always use the platform base weights from the matching reference file.
- Always show sub-dimension scores inside each base dimension.
- The selected goal changes what evidence is considered most important and how suggestions are sorted.
- Do not change platform base weights for different goals unless the user explicitly asks for a custom model.
- Score missing required artifacts as missing evidence, not as neutral.
- Give a confidence level if web search, files, cover assets, cards, or article HTML are incomplete.
- Tie each major deduction to visible evidence: a card number, article section, title, summary, cover asset, metadata field, missing file, or comparable sample.
- Do not give a score above 85 if the core creative artifact is incomplete: Xiaohongshu missing cards, WeChat missing article HTML, or no readable body content.
- Do not give a score above 80 when web search fails and the user explicitly requested comparable analysis; mark the comparison as file-only.
- Treat 90+ as "ready after polish", 80-89 as "publish after targeted edits", 70-79 as "revise before publish", and below 70 as "major rewrite or incomplete".
Output Format
Always output in Chinese unless the user explicitly asks otherwise.
Use this exact structure:
## 总分
<score>/100
一句话判断：<can publish / should revise / needs major rewrite>
## 分项分
- <dimension>: <score>/<weight> — <brief reason>
- 二级分项：<subscore>/<subweight> — <file evidence or missing evidence>
## 证据清单
- 已读取材料：<post.json / card files / article HTML / cover / metadata / assets>
- 缺失或不可读材料：<missing files, if any>
- 联网对标证据：<search terms and , >
对标样本/参考方向：
当前作品优势：
当前作品差距：
当前目标：
最影响该目标的扣分项：
信心等级：
Quality Bar
- Be specific to the current files. Mention exact card numbers, article sections, title/cover issues, or CTA locations when possible.
- Do not give generic advice like “标题更吸引人” without a concrete rewrite direction.
- Do not claim third-party sources are official platform rules.
- Do not edit files unless the user explicitly asks for revision after the diagnosis.
- If content is incomplete, score what exists and clearly mark missing materials.
Do Not
- Do not treat Canva, KAWO, Yiban, creator blogs, or marketing articles as hard platform policy.
- Do not fabricate comparable articles when web search fails.
- Do not change platform base weights for different goals.
- Do not score purely from the title if the post folder is unreadable.
- Do not rewrite HTML, assets, or
post.json during diagnosis.
- Do not hide uncertainty; state what files or external comparisons were unavailable.
Test Prompts
Use test-prompts.json in this skill directory for validation prompts: Xiaohongshu and WeChat each cover IP增长, 产品转化, and 爆文流量, plus missing-folder and web-search-limited edge cases.
Run python3 scripts/validate_skill_contract.py from this skill directory to check required references, output sections, test prompt coverage, and frontmatter size.
