Skill: cellinlab/cell-content-strategy-diagnosis (version 0.1.0)

--- name: content-strategy-diagnosis description: Content-strategy diagnosis for Chinese creator work. Use when Codex needs to judge whether a topic, draft, or content plan should become a short video, post, article, or live session; identify whether the real problem is the angle, materials, format, platform fit, or goal linkage; and return a concrete next action instead of jumping straight into writing. metadata: {"openclaw":{"homepage":"https://github.com/cellinlab/cell-skills/tree/main/skills/content-strategy-diagnosis"}} --- # Content Strategy Diagnosis ## Overview Use this skill before writing. The goal is not to produce the content immediately, but to judge whether the content idea itself is standing on solid ground: - is the topic clear enough - does it have enough material density - what format can carry it best - which platform or scenario fits it - if the user wants growth, trust, consultation, or sales, does the content connect to that goal This is a diagnosis skill, not a ghostwriting skill. ## Quick Start 1. First identify the input state: idea, plan, draft, or half-finished content. 2. Clarify the user's goal before discussing tactics. 3. Diagnose the main bottleneck before offering multiple suggestions. 4. Recommend the best-fit format and platform, not every possible format. 5. End with one concrete first move. If the user only wants judgment, stop after the diagnosis and do not drift into full writing. ## Default Contract Assume the following unless the user says otherwise: - write in Chinese - diagnose before writing - prioritize the biggest problem, not every possible flaw - if the content has a commercial goal, check the offer or business linkage - if the content is not commercial, do not force a product-first conclusion - prefer one sharp next step over a long list of soft suggestions ## Workflow ### Phase 1: Scope the Task Determine: - what the user already has: topic, outline, draft, or content plan - what the content is trying to do: growth, trust, education, conversion, testing, or thinking in public - whether the user already chose a format or platform - whether the current problem feels like a strategy problem or a writing problem If the input is too thin to diagnose, say what is missing instead of pretending certainty. For messy or mixed cases, read [references/workflow.md](references/workflow.md). ### Phase 2: Match the Right Carrier Decide what form can best carry the idea: - short video for high-compression claims, conflict, strong hooks, and face-led persuasion - image post or carousel for saved information, steps, lists, and visual comparison - article or long-form post for layered logic, background, and deeper argument chains - live or dialogue format for interactive tension, objection handling, or case-based discussion Do not recommend a format only because it is trendy. Recommend the format that fits the material and goal. ### Phase 3: Run the Five-Lens Diagnosis Judge the content through these five lenses: 1. **Topic and promise** - Is the central point clear? - Can the audience quickly tell what this piece is about and why it matters? 2. **Material density** - Does the content have enough data, scenes, examples, contrast, or sharp experience to carry the claim? 3. **Format and platform fit** - Is the chosen carrier helping or hurting the idea? 4. **Expression efficiency** - Is the piece saying one thing clearly, or packaging one small idea in too much explanation? 5. **Goal linkage** - If the user wants business results, can the content naturally connect to a service, product, consultation, or next action? Read [references/diagnostic-lens.md](references/diagnostic-lens.md) when the diagnosis is not obvious. ### Phase 4: Separate the Real Problem from the Visible Symptom Common mismatches: - the user thinks the issue is the title, but the real issue is weak material - the user thinks the issue is the platform, but the real issue is choosing the wrong content form - the user thinks the issue is "AI flavor", but the real issue is low specificity - the user thinks the issue is writing quality, but the real issue is an unclear promise Name the primary problem directly. ### Phase 5: Recommend the Next Skill or Next Move After diagnosing, choose the smallest next step that moves the work forward: - if the angle and format are right but the full piece is not written, hand off to `$deep-writer` - if the piece needs a stronger short-form opening, hand off to `$hook-optimizer` - if the structure is fine but the voice is too flat or too templated, hand off to `$celf-style-writer` - if the user needs to study comparable creators or businesses first, hand off to `$benchmark-filter` Do not hand off by default. Only recommend the next skill if it clearly solves the diagnosed bottleneck. ## Output Format Default to [assets/diagnosis-template.md](assets/diagnosis-template.md). At minimum, include: - one-line diagnosis - recommended format and platform - five-lens table or bullet-equivalent - the main bottleneck - one concrete first action - the best next skill if applicable ## Hard Rules Do not: - write the full content when the user asked for diagnosis - pretend all formats are equally fine - use "can go viral" as the main judgment standard - force a sales logic onto every piece of content - blame the platform before checking the content itself - give a long generic list of tips instead of naming the main issue Always: - clarify the content goal - recommend a primary format - distinguish strategy problems from writing problems - state material gaps when they matter - end with one clear next move ## Resource Map - [references/workflow.md](references/workflow.md) - Read for the full diagnosis sequence, mixed-input handling, and symptom-versus-cause rules. - [references/diagnostic-lens.md](references/diagnostic-lens.md) - Read for the five lenses, scoring heuristics, and common failure patterns. - [assets/diagnosis-template.md](assets/diagnosis-template.md) - Use for the standard report shape.

path: agents/openai.yaml
content: interface:
  display_name: "内容策略诊断"
  short_description: "判断一个内容题该怎么做才成立，而不是直接帮你开写"
  default_prompt: "Use $content-strategy-diagnosis to evaluate this Chinese topic, draft, or content plan before writing: identify the main bottleneck, recommend the best-fit format and platform, check material density and goal linkage, and end with one concrete next move."


path: assets/diagnosis-template.md
content: # 内容策略诊断卡

## 一句话判断

- 这条内容目前更像：

## 推荐载体

- 最适合的形式：
- 推荐平台 / 场景：
- 理由：

## 五维诊断

| 维度 | 判断 | 说明 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Topic / Promise |  |  |
| Material Density |  |  |
| Format / Platform Fit |  |  |
| Expression Efficiency |  |  |
| Goal Linkage |  |  |

## 当前主问题

- 

## 建议先做的第一步

- 

## 后续 Skill 交接

- 如果需要，下一步更适合交给：


path: references/diagnostic-lens.md
content: # 五维诊断透镜

## 1. Topic and Promise

判断点：

- 能不能用一句话说清楚这条内容到底讲什么
- 用户为什么会停下来
- 这条内容许诺的价值是否明确

常见失败信号：

- 主题过大
- 题目看似明确，正文却在说别的
- 说的是一个概念，但没有落到一个具体问题

## 2. Material Density

判断点：

- 有没有案例、数据、故事、反差、实验、细节、清晰判断
- 材料是否真的支撑了主张

常见失败信号：

- 全文只有观点，没有支撑
- 只有态度，没有证据
- 看起来很多字，但信息增量很少

## 3. Format and Platform Fit

判断点：

- 内容的复杂度和载体容量是否匹配
- 平台用户习惯是否和内容预期动作匹配

常见失败信号：

- 深逻辑内容被压成快节奏短视频
- 需要保存的信息却做成一次性口播
- 需要信任建立的内容，却没有适合展开的空间

## 4. Expression Efficiency

判断点：

- 一段话承担一个清楚任务
- 重要判断出现得够早
- 是否存在大面积包装、铺垫和重复解释

常见失败信号：

- 99% 的篇幅在绕着 1% 的观点打转
- 开头太长还没进入正题
- 每段都像结论，但没有推进

## 5. Goal Linkage

判断点：

- 如果目标是业务结果，内容后面有没有自然的下一步
- 内容在用户心里会积累什么资产：认知、信任、名单、咨询还是成交

常见失败信号：

- 讲了半天，但不知道用户下一步该干什么
- 业务目标很强，但内容里完全看不到承接入口
- 想靠一条内容成交，但前面没建立足够信任


path: references/workflow.md
content: # 内容策略诊断 Workflow

## 1. 输入状态判断

先判断用户给你的是什么：

- 只有一个题
- 已经有内容计划
- 已经有草稿
- 内容已经发过，但想复盘问题

不同输入状态，对应不同诊断重心：

- 只有一个题
  - 重点看题是否成立、适合什么载体、需要补什么材料
- 有计划但没成稿
  - 重点看形式、平台、目标动作路径
- 有草稿
  - 重点看 promise、表达效率、材料分布、是否选错载体
- 已发内容复盘
  - 重点看内容本体问题，不要把一切先归因为平台算法

## 2. 目标先行

至少判断用户更偏向哪一种目标：

- 建认知
- 建信任
- 获取咨询或私信
- 直接成交
- 做观点表达或公开思考

如果目标不同，内容标准也不同。

例如：

- 建认知
  - 更重第一眼理解和记忆点
- 建信任
  - 更重具体案例、判断过程和可信细节
- 成交
  - 更重是否能自然连接到产品或服务

## 3. 推荐载体的判断顺序

优先问三个问题：

1. 这个内容靠什么成立：逻辑、画面、情绪、结果、步骤，还是人本身？
2. 用户需要停留多久才能真正感受到价值？
3. 用户看完后希望发生什么动作？

常见匹配：

- 强观点 + 高压缩表达
  - 更适合短视频或短帖
- 复杂逻辑 + 需要背景
  - 更适合文章或长视频
- 步骤、清单、对比
  - 更适合图文或 carousel
- 需要现场互动和反驳处理
  - 更适合直播或对谈

## 4. 症状与根因分离

优先排查以下错位：

### 4.1 标题问题，其实是 promise 问题

如果用户自己都说不清“这一条到底要说什么”，就不要先讨论标题。

### 4.2 开头问题，其实是材料问题

如果正文没有数据、反差、场景、案例、锐利判断，开头再用力也只是在透支。

### 4.3 平台问题，其实是形式问题

有些内容不是平台错，而是把应该写成长文的东西硬压成短视频。

### 4.4 AI 味问题，其实是作者感问题

真正的问题常常不是 AI，而是没有个人判断、没有体验痕迹、没有具体对象。

## 5. 结论写法

默认按这个顺序交付：

1. 一句话判断
2. 推荐形式和平台
3. 五维诊断
4. 主问题
5. 第一动作
6. 是否建议交给其他 Skill

## 6. 何时停止

以下情况可以止步于诊断，不必继续给大量建议：

- 用户只问“问题在哪”
- 输入信息明显不足
- 核心问题已经足够明确
- 后续更适合交给别的 Skill


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: clean (LOW)