Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索需要联网github未标认证来源可访问许可证需确认审计提醒

content-research-writer内容研究作家

Agent Skill

用于辅助文档、README、Markdown、说明文和内容稿件的整理与改写。它适合让 Agent 提炼结构、补齐章节、统一术语、检查链接或把零散材料整理成可读文档。使用时应保留项目已有事实、命令和路径,不要把未确认的信息写成确定结论;涉及对外文案时,还需要控制语气,避免过度营销或夸大能力。

总安装

720

周安装

30

GitHub Stars

1

下载量

240
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

unknown

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:content-research-writer(内容研究作家)
来源仓库:https://github.com/pixel-process-ug/superkit-agents
仓库路径:skills/content-research-writer
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/pixel-process-ug/superkit-agents --skill content-research-writer
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/pixel-process-ug/superkit-agents --skill content-research-writer

简介

content-research-writer 用于辅助文档、README 和内容稿件的整理与改写,适合结构提炼和术语统一。

  • 适用于 Markdown、说明文和外文案的章节补齐和可读性提升场景。
  • 保留项目已有事实和路径,避免将未确认信息写成确定结论。
  • 通过 npx skills add 命令从指定 GitHub 仓库安装并使用该技能。
  • 适用宿主包括 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,接入前应确认版本、权限和运行环境要求。

SKILL.md

Content Research Writer

Overview

Produce well-researched, authoritative long-form content with proper source attribution, structured argumentation, and evidence-based claims. This skill covers research methodology, source evaluation, citation management, outline construction, drafting workflows, fact-checking protocols, and publishing-ready formatting for articles, whitepapers, reports, and educational content.

Apply this skill whenever content must be backed by evidence, cited properly, and structured for credibility with expert audiences.

Multi-Phase Process

Phase 1: Research Planning

  1. Define the topic scope and target audience
  2. Identify key questions the content must answer
  3. Determine content type (article, whitepaper, case study, guide)
  4. Set word count target and depth level
  5. Establish credibility requirements (peer-reviewed, industry reports, primary data)
  6. Create a research timeline with milestones
STOP — Do NOT begin source discovery until the research plan is documented and scope is agreed upon.

Phase 2: Source Discovery and Evaluation

  1. Search academic databases (Google Scholar, PubMed, JSTOR, arXiv)
  2. Identify industry reports and authoritative publications
  3. Find primary sources (official documentation, datasets, specifications)
  4. Evaluate source credibility using the CRAAP test (see table below)
  5. Organize sources in a reference manager or structured format
  6. Extract key findings, statistics, and quotable passages
STOP — Do NOT begin outlining until you have sufficient Tier 1-2 sources for every core claim.

Phase 3: Outline and Structure

  1. Create a thesis statement or central argument
  2. Build hierarchical outline with main sections and subsections
  3. Map evidence to each section (which sources support which claims)
  4. Identify gaps requiring additional research
  5. Define transitions between sections for narrative flow
  6. Plan visual elements (tables, charts, diagrams, callouts)
STOP — Do NOT begin drafting until the outline is reviewed and evidence gaps are filled.

Phase 4: Drafting

  1. Write section by section following the outline
  2. Integrate citations as you write (never retrofit)
  3. Balance original analysis with supporting evidence
  4. Use topic sentences and clear paragraph structure
  5. Include concrete examples, data points, and case studies
  6. Write introduction last (after body is complete)
STOP — Do NOT move to review until all sections are drafted and all citations are in place.

Phase 5: Review and Fact-Check

  1. Verify every factual claim against its source
  2. Check all statistics for accuracy and context
  3. Ensure citations are complete and correctly formatted
  4. Review for logical consistency and argument strength
  5. Proofread for clarity, grammar, and style
  6. Have subject matter expert review if possible

Content Type Decision Table

Content TypeWord CountResearch DepthAudienceCitation Style
Blog article1,500-3,000Tier 2-3 sourcesGeneralInline links
Long-form article3,000-5,000Tier 1-3 sourcesInformed readersParenthetical (APA)
Whitepaper3,000-8,000Tier 1-2 mandatoryDecision-makersFootnotes or numbered
Case study1,000-2,500Primary + Tier 2BuyersInline attribution
Technical report5,000-15,000Tier 1 mandatoryExpertsIEEE or APA
Educational guide2,000-6,000Tier 1-3 mixedLearnersParenthetical

Source Evaluation Framework (CRAAP Test)

CriterionQuestions to AskRed Flags
CurrencyWhen was it published? Updated?> 5 years old for fast-moving topics
RelevanceDoes it directly address your topic?Tangential connection, different context
AuthorityWho is the author? What are their credentials?No author, no institutional affiliation
AccuracyIs it supported by evidence? Peer-reviewed?No citations, unverifiable claims
PurposeWhy does this exist? Inform, sell, persuade?Strong commercial bias, advocacy without disclosure

Source Tier System

TierSource TypeCredibilityUse For
Tier 1Peer-reviewed journals, official standardsHighestCore claims, statistics
Tier 2Industry reports (Gartner, McKinsey), textbooksHighMarket data, frameworks
Tier 3Reputable news outlets, official documentationGoodContext, current events
Tier 4Expert blogs, conference talks, interviewsModeratePerspectives, opinions
Tier 5Social media, forums, WikipediaLowDiscovery only, never cite directly

Citation Formats

Inline Citation Styles

# Parenthetical (APA-style)
Research shows that 73% of enterprises have adopted cloud-native architectures
(Smith & Johnson, 2025).

# Narrative
According to Smith and Johnson (2025), 73% of enterprises have adopted
cloud-native architectures.

# Footnote-style (Chicago)
Research shows significant cloud adoption.[^1]

[^1]: Smith, J., & Johnson, R. (2025). Cloud adoption trends.
*Journal of Cloud Computing*, 12(3), 45-62.

# Numbered (IEEE-style)
Research shows significant cloud adoption [1].

## References
[1] J. Smith and R. Johnson, "Cloud adoption trends," *J. Cloud Computing*,
    vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 45-62, 2025.

Reference Format Templates

# Journal Article
Author, A. B., & Author, C. D. (Year). Title of article. *Journal Name*,
Volume(Issue), Pages. https://doi.org/xxxxx

# Book
Author, A. B. (Year). *Title of book* (Edition). Publisher.

# Website
Author or Organization. (Year, Month Day). Title of page. Site Name.
https://www.example.com/page

# Report
Organization. (Year). *Title of report* (Report No. XXX).
https://www.example.com/report.pdf

Content Structure Templates

Long-Form Article (2000-5000 words)

1. Hook / Opening Anecdote (100-200 words)
2. Context and Problem Statement (200-300 words)
3. Thesis / Key Insight (50-100 words)
4. Section 1: Background (400-600 words)
   - Historical context
   - Current state
   - Key definitions
5. Section 2: Core Analysis (600-1000 words)
   - Main argument with evidence
   - Data and statistics
   - Expert perspectives
6. Section 3: Implications (400-600 words)
   - Practical applications
   - Case studies
   - Future outlook
7. Section 4: Counterarguments (200-400 words)
   - Acknowledge limitations
   - Address objections
8. Conclusion (200-300 words)
   - Synthesize key findings
   - Call to action or forward-looking statement
9. References

Whitepaper (3000-8000 words)

1. Executive Summary (300-500 words)
2. Introduction and Problem Statement (500-800 words)
3. Methodology (300-500 words)
4. Findings / Analysis (1500-3000 words)
   - Section with data visualization
   - Comparative analysis
   - Case studies
5. Recommendations (500-1000 words)
6. Conclusion (300-500 words)
7. Appendices
8. References

Case Study (1000-2500 words)

1. Executive Summary (100-200 words)
2. Challenge / Problem (200-400 words)
3. Approach / Solution (300-600 words)
4. Implementation (300-500 words)
5. Results and Metrics (200-400 words)
6. Lessons Learned (200-300 words)
7. About [Company/Subject]

Writing Quality Checklist

Paragraph Level

  • Each paragraph has a clear topic sentence
  • Paragraphs are 3-6 sentences (avoid walls of text)
  • Transitions connect paragraphs logically
  • Evidence follows claims immediately

Sentence Level

  • Vary sentence length (mix short and long)
  • Active voice preferred over passive
  • Avoid jargon without definition
  • Concrete language over abstract

Document Level

  • Introduction establishes the "so what" clearly
  • Each section advances the central argument
  • No unsupported claims
  • Conclusion adds value (doesn't just repeat)
  • Consistent tone and reading level throughout

Fact-Checking Protocol

Verification Steps

  1. Primary source check: Trace every claim back to its original source
  2. Cross-reference: Verify key facts with at least 2 independent sources
  3. Statistical validation: Check that numbers are current and in context
  4. Quote accuracy: Verify exact wording of all direct quotes
  5. Date verification: Confirm all dates and timelines
  6. Name and title check: Verify correct spelling and current titles

Common Fact-Checking Pitfalls

PitfallExamplePrevention
Outdated statistics"50% of..." from a 2018 studyAlways note publication year, seek recent data
Misattributed quotesEinstein didn't say most "Einstein quotes"Trace to primary source document
Survivorship bias"All successful companies do X"Look for counterexamples
Correlation as causation"Countries that eat chocolate win more Nobels"Distinguish correlation from causation
Out-of-context numbers"Revenue grew 500%" (from $1 to $5)Always provide absolute numbers and context

Research Tools

ToolPurposeBest For
Google ScholarAcademic paper searchPeer-reviewed research
Semantic ScholarAI-powered paper discoveryFinding related work
arXivPreprintsCutting-edge CS/ML/Physics
PubMedMedical/bio researchHealth and life sciences
StatistaStatistics and market dataIndustry data points
Wayback MachineHistorical web pagesVerifying past claims
Zotero / MendeleyReference managementOrganizing sources
PerplexityAI-assisted researchInitial discovery

Anti-Patterns / Common Mistakes

Anti-PatternWhy It FailsWhat To Do Instead
Claims without citationsUndermines credibility entirelyCite every factual claim inline
Single-source assertionsOne source can be wrong or biasedCross-reference with 2+ independent sources
Citing secondary when primary existsTelephone game distorts findingsTrace to and cite the original study
Writing introduction firstLeads to misalignment with bodyWrite body first, introduction last
Padding to reach word countReaders detect filler immediatelyAdd depth or cut the target
Weasel words without specifics"Some experts say" means nothingName the expert, cite the source
Retrofitting citations after draftingGaps in evidence go unnoticedIntegrate citations during writing
Ignoring counterargumentsOne-sided work lacks credibilityAddress objections explicitly
Paraphrasing too closelyBorderline plagiarism even with citationSummarize in your own analytical voice
No conflict-of-interest disclosureErodes trust when discoveredDisclose sponsorship or affiliations upfront

Anti-Rationalization Guards

  • Do NOT skip the CRAAP test because "the source looks reputable" -- evaluate it formally.
  • Do NOT use Tier 4-5 sources for core claims, regardless of convenience.
  • Do NOT begin drafting without a completed outline with evidence mapped to sections.
  • Do NOT publish without running the fact-checking protocol on every statistic and quote.
  • Do NOT retrofit citations after writing -- integrate them as you draft.

Integration Points

SkillHow It Connects
seo-optimizerResearch content needs SEO-optimized titles, meta descriptions, and structured data
content-creatorResearch findings feed into marketing copy and social media content
email-composerResearch summaries inform stakeholder update emails and executive briefings
tech-docs-generatorTechnical research follows similar source evaluation and citation practices
llm-as-judgeEvaluate research content quality against rubric dimensions
clean-codeWriting quality checklist parallels clean code principles for prose

Skill Type

FLEXIBLE — Adapt research depth, citation formality, and structure to the content type and audience. Academic whitepapers demand Tier 1 sources and formal citations; blog posts may use a lighter approach. The fact-checking protocol and source evaluation framework are always recommended.

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

Codex

34.39%
按下载量换算83

Claude

34.25%
按下载量换算82

Cursor

18.66%
按下载量换算45

Gemini CLI

10.23%
按下载量换算25

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

可疑

权限和风险

需要联网

该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。来源安全扫描存在 warning/failed 结果,不能写成本站确认安全。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills