// Write, review, and improve blog posts for the Sentry engineering blog following Sentry's specific writing standards, voice, and quality bar. Use this skill whenever someone asks to write a blog post, draft a technical article, review blog content, improve a draft, write a...
Creating algorithmic art using p5.js with seeded randomness and interactive parameter exploration. Use this when users request creating art using code, generative art, algorithmic art, flow fields, or particle systems. Create original algorithmic art rather than copying existing artists' work to avoid copyright violations.
Interactive system flow tracing across CODE, API, AUTH, DATA, NETWORK layers with SQLite persistence and Mermaid export. Use for security audits, compliance documentation, flow tracing, feature ideation, brainstorming, debugging, architecture reviews, or incident post-mortems. Triggers on audit, trace flow, document flow, security review, debug flow, brainstorm, architecture review, post-mortem, incident review.
Test for authentication bypass, broken access control, IDOR, and JWT vulnerabilities. Use when testing authorization controls, when escalating privileges, when manipulating tokens, or when the user needs to verify access control implementation.
When editing, creating, writing content and articles to avoid AI writing patterns ("AI-isms") that make text sound machine-generated. Follow the guidelines in the skill description to audit, rewrite, and summarize changes.
Applies Anthropic's official brand colors and typography to any sort of artifact that may benefit from having Anthropic's look-and-feel. Use it when brand colors or style guidelines, visual formatting, or company design standards apply.
Caching strategies — invalidation, TTL guidelines, cache keys, cache layers, and when not to cache. Use when implementing or reviewing caching logic.
| name | blog-writing-guide |
| description | Write, review, and improve blog posts for the Sentry engineering blog following Sentry's specific writing standards, voice, and quality bar. Use this skill whenever someone asks to write a blog post, draft a technical article, review blog content, improve a draft, write a... |
| tags | ["writing","blog","sentry","engineering-blog","technical-writing"] |
| triggers | ["write blog post","engineering blog","sentry blog","technical blog","blog review"] |
This skill enforces Sentry's blog writing standards across every post — whether you're helping an engineer write their first blog post or a marketer draft a product announcement.
The bar: Every Sentry blog post should be something a senior engineer would share in their team's Slack, or reference in a technical decision.
What follows are the core principles to internalize and apply to every piece of content.
We sound like: A senior developer at a conference afterparty explaining something they're genuinely excited about — smart, specific, a little irreverent, deeply knowledgeable.
We don't sound like: A corporate blog, a press release, a sales deck, or an AI-generated summary.
Be technically precise, opinionated, and direct. Humor is welcome but should serve the content, not replace it. Sarcasm works. One good joke per post is plenty.
Use "we" (Sentry) and "you" (the reader). This is a conversation, not a paper.
Never use these. They are automatic red flags:
The opening must do one of two things: state the problem or state the conclusion. Never start with background, company history, or hype.
Good: "Two weeks before launch, we killed our entire metrics product. Here's why pre-aggregating time-series metrics breaks down for debugging, and how we rebuilt the system from scratch."
Bad: "At Sentry, we're always looking for ways to improve the developer experience. Today, we're thrilled to share some exciting updates to our metrics product that we think you'll love."
Structure every post around what the reader is actually wondering, not your internal narrative:
For engineering deep-dives, also address: 5. What did we try that didn't work? (Builds trust) 6. What are the known limitations? (Shows intellectual honesty)
Weak: "Background," "Architecture," "Results," "Conclusion"
Strong: "Why time-series pre-aggregation destroys debugging context," "The scatter-gather approach to distributed GROUP BY," "Where this breaks down: the cardinality wall"
Numbers over adjectives. If you make a performance claim, include the number.
Code must work. If a post includes code, test it. Include imports, configuration, and context. Comments should explain why, not what.
Diagrams for systems. If you describe a system with more than two interacting components, include a diagram. Label with real service names, not generic boxes.
Honesty over hype. Never overstate what a feature does. Acknowledge limitations. If something is in beta, say so. If a competitor does something well, it's okay to note that. Do not claim AI features are more capable than they are — "Seer suggests a likely root cause" ≠ "Seer finds the root cause."
The title is the highest-leverage sentence in the post. It must stop a developer scrolling through their RSS feed or Twitter.
Strong titles make a specific claim, tell a story, or promise a specific payoff:
Weak titles are vague announcements:
End with something useful — a link to docs, a way to try it, a call to give feedback. Never end with generic hype ("We can't wait to see what you build!") or recaps of what you just said.
Here's the quick map by post type:
| Type | Goal | Byline |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering Deep Dive | Explain a technical system/decision so other engineers learn | The engineer(s) who built it. Always. |
| Product Launch | Explain what shipped, why it matters, how to use it | PM, engineer, or DevEx. Not PMM unless marketing built it. |
| Postmortem | Transparent failure analysis with timeline and fixes | Engineering leadership |
| Data / Research | Original insights from Sentry's unique data position | Data team, engineering, or research |
| Tutorial / Guide | Help a developer accomplish something specific | DevEx, engineer, or community contributor |
Before publishing, ask: Would a developer share this post? Does it have a shot at getting on Hacker News? If the answer is no, the post either needs more depth, more original insight, or it belongs in the changelog instead.
Posts worth sharing contain at least one of:
Run through both checklists:
Technical Review:
Editorial Review:
Final Check:
When providing feedback, be specific and constructive. Quote the weak passage, explain why it's weak, and rewrite it to show the standard.
