Skill: akira82-ai/idea-to-post (version 0.1.0)

--- name: idea-to-post description: Expand scattered ideas into in-depth posts. Use this skill when users need to "expand ideas," "generate posts," "brainstorm content," "writing assistance," "enrich thoughts," "deepen thinking," or provide scattered ideas that need systematic expression. version: 1.5.0 allowed-tools: AskUserQuestion, WebSearch, mcp__web_reader__webReader model: claude-sonnet-4-20250514 --- # Idea-to-Post Expansion Skill ## Skill Overview This skill helps you expand scattered ideas (a sentence, a few words, a vague thought) into **90+ point** social media posts. **Target Positioning: Quality social media content, not technical documentation** It works through the following ways: 1. **Framework Internalization** - Use thinking frameworks to design questions, but don't mechanically apply them 2. **Information Search & Integration** - Automatically search for high-quality materials, supplement relevant data and cases 3. **Progressive Deep Questioning** - Multiple-choice to set direction + open questions to enrich content, **7-10 rounds of dialogue** until complete 4. **Iterative Polishing & Optimization** - Reflect and optimize after generation, pursuing 90+ point quality 5. **Multi-Platform Output** - Generate post versions adapted to different platforms **Expected dialogue rounds: 7-10 rounds** - 3-4 rounds: Get direction and core viewpoints (technical documentation level) - 5-7 rounds: Add cases, emotions, uniqueness (social media level) - 7-10 rounds: Deep mining, repeated polishing (quality social media level) ## Core Mechanism: Progressive Questioning + Framework Internalization ### Three Core Principles **1. Internalize Frameworks, Don't Expose Them** Use thinking framework logic to design questions, but don't say "I'm using [Framework Name]": ``` Wrong: "I recommend using the PREP framework. Now for Point: What's your viewpoint?" Correct: "What's the core viewpoint you want to express?" Questions have framework thinking, but the dialogue is natural. ``` **2. Combine Multiple Choice + Open Questions** ``` Multiple Choice (AskUserQuestion) Quickly lock direction Open Questions (direct dialogue) Deeply mine content Multiple Choice = Skeleton | Open Questions = Flesh and blood ``` **3. Progressive Deepening, Dynamic Adjustment** Each round of questions is based on the previous answer, naturally transitioning to the next dimension: ``` User: "todo is an underrated command" ↓ Follow-up: What does "underrated" specifically mean? (Concept deepening) ↓ User: "People don't know it's a conversation memory mechanism" ↓ Follow-up: What pain point does it solve? (Value inquiry) ↓ Follow-up: Any specific examples? (Case supplement) ``` --- ### Questioning Flow (7-10 Rounds of Dialogue + Multi-Stage Search) ``` ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ User inputs idea │ └────────────────┬────────────────────────────────┘ │ ▼ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ [Initial Search] Background information │ │ collection │ │ - Identify core concepts │ │ - Multi-angle search queries │ │ - Get background materials │ └────────────────┬────────────────────────────────┘ │ ▼ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Rounds 1-2: Direction locking │ │ (mainly multiple choice) │ │ - Goal? Audience? Platform? │ │ - Quickly position article type │ └────────────────┬────────────────────────────────┘ │ ▼ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Rounds 3-4: Core deep dive │ │ (open questions) │ │ - What's the core viewpoint? │ │ - What does "underrated" specifically mean? │ │ - What pain point does it solve? │ │ - Why do you think so? │ └────────────────┬────────────────────────────────┘ │ ▼ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Rounds 5-6: Real cases │ │ (open questions, required) │ │ - When was the most recent time? │ │ - What feature? What specifically was said? │ │ - How did you feel at that moment? │ │ - Any comparison cases? (with vs without) │ └────────────────┬────────────────────────────────┘ │ ▼ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Round 7: Emotional resonance │ │ (open questions, required) │ │ - Most frustrated/surprised moment? │ │ - Physical reaction? Slap thigh? Long sigh? │ │ - Turning point from "useless" to "amazing"? │ └────────────────┬────────────────────────────────┘ │ ▼ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Round 8: Uniqueness │ │ (open questions) │ │ - Any undiscovered tips? │ │ - Any unique usage methods? │ │ - Any counter-intuitive understanding? │ └────────────────┬────────────────────────────────┘ │ ▼ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ [Precision Search] Based on user's unique │ │ viewpoints │ │ - Extract unique insights/counter-intuitive │ │ viewpoints │ │ - Reverse search for supporting evidence │ │ - Multi-angle validation │ │ (industry/competitors/data) │ │ - Try different keywords if search fails │ └────────────────┬────────────────────────────────┘ │ ▼ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Round 9: Structure confirmation │ │ (multiple choice) │ │ - Article structure? │ │ - Style preference? │ └────────────────┬────────────────────────────────┘ │ ▼ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Round 10: Final touches │ │ (mixed) │ │ - Core golden sentence? │ │ - Call to action? │ │ - Anything else to add? │ └────────────────┬────────────────────────────────┘ │ ▼ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Information completeness assessment │ │ (90+ point standard) │ │ Core viewpoint │ │ Real cases (required) │ │ Emotional resonance (required) │ │ Unique viewpoints (required) │ │ External validation (search results) │ │ → Complete, generate content │ │ → Incomplete, continue questioning │ └────────────────┬────────────────────────────────┘ │ ▼ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ First draft generation │ │ (standard Markdown format) │ │ - Integrate all information │ │ - Use heading levels, bold, quote blocks, etc. │ │ - Generate structured content │ └────────────────┬────────────────────────────────┘ │ ▼ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Reflection and optimization (optional) │ │ - What's not good enough? │ │ - What needs supplementing? │ │ - Iterate and optimize │ └────────────────┬────────────────────────────────┘ │ ▼ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Final output (standard Markdown format) │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ ``` **Note: Cases, emotions, and uniqueness are required and cannot be skipped. The second round of precision search is a key环节.** --- ### Integrating Framework Thinking into Questions | Framework Thinking | Questioning Approach | Example | |-------------------|---------------------|---------| | Point | What's the core viewpoint? | "What's the core viewpoint you want to express?" | | Reason | Why do you think so? | "Why do you think so? What's the reason?" | | What | What specifically? | "What does this specifically refer to?" | | Why | Why is it important? | "What pain point does it solve?" | | How | How is it done? | "How is it implemented?" | | Example | Any examples? | "Any specific cases?" | | Situation | Initial state? | "What was the initial state?" | | Complication | What conflict? | "What challenge appeared?" | **Frameworks are thinking tools, not questioning templates.** --- ## Quick Framework Selection Guide ### Automatic Recommendation Rules Based on keywords in your input, the system will automatically recommend frameworks: | Keywords | Recommended Framework | |----------|----------------------| | Why, essence, original intention, mission, value | Golden Circle | | Problem, challenge, dilemma, turning point, story | SCQA | | Promotion, publicity, conversion, sales, marketing | AIDA | | Viewpoint, opinion, think, should, suggest | PREP | | Deep dive, root cause, trace back, underlying | 5-Why | | Innovation, breakthrough, disrupt, reconstruct, essence | First Principles | | Product, feature, advantage, selling point, characteristic | FBA | | Other or unclear | 5W1H (default) | ### Framework Introduction For detailed framework explanations, refer to `references/thinking-frameworks.md` --- ## Usage Flow ### Core Flow: Keep Questioning Until Complete ``` ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ User inputs idea │ └────────────────┬────────────────────────────────┘ │ ▼ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ First round: Direction questions │ │ - Keyword analysis based on topic │ │ - Recommend thinking framework │ │ - Confirm target platform and audience │ └────────────────┬────────────────────────────────┘ │ ▼ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ User answers │ └────────────────┬────────────────────────────────┘ │ ▼ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Second round: Framework deep dive │ │ - Ask core elements based on selected framework │ │ - Focus on 1-2 key questions per round │ │ - Dynamically adjust subsequent questions │ └────────────────┬────────────────────────────────┘ │ ▼ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Third round: Detail supplement │ │ - Ask missing details based on available info │ │ - Cases, data, emotional points, etc. │ │ - Interactive design and call to action │ └────────────────┬────────────────────────────────┘ │ ▼ ...Loop... │ ▼ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Skill judges: Information completeness │ │ assessment │ │ - Is core viewpoint clear? │ │ - Is supporting material sufficient? │ │ - Are emotional resonance points clear? │ │ - Is interactive design specific? │ │ │ │ → Incomplete: Continue questioning │ │ → Complete: Enter generation phase │ └────────────────┬────────────────────────────────┘ │ ▼ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Integrate information to generate post │ │ - Original idea │ │ - Search materials │ │ - User answers │ │ - Framework structure │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ ``` ### Information Search (Multi-Stage Execution, Required) Search must be performed in **multiple stages** to ensure precise external validation is collected: #### Stage 1: Initial Background Search (Before questioning begins) Execute initial information search before questioning starts: 1. Identify core concepts in the topic 2. Build multi-angle search queries 3. Use WebSearch to get relevant materials 4. Use WebFetch to read key pages in depth 5. Organize search results for later use #### Stage 2: Precision Deep Search (After collecting core viewpoints) **This is the most critical step** - after collecting the user's core viewpoints and unique insights, you must perform a **second round of precision search**: 1. **Build search terms based on user's unique viewpoints** - Extract unique insights/counter-intuitive viewpoints proposed by user - Use these viewpoints as keywords for reverse search - Look for supporting or refuting evidence 2. **Multi-angle validation search** - Search industry reports, news media - Search competitors/international cases - Search data support 3. **Handling search failures** - If one search fails/is limited, try different keyword combinations - Use more generic or more specific search terms - Try English search terms for international perspective - Record search status, inform user (e.g., if search was restricted) #### Search Keyword Strategy | Stage | Search Focus | Example Keywords | |-------|-------------|------------------| | Initial search | Background info, basic facts | "Qianwen 3 release", "AI e-commerce assistant" | | Precision search | User unique viewpoint validation | "AI vs e-commerce conflict", "traffic distribution AI impact" | | Comparison search | International cases, competitor analysis | "ChatGPT e-commerce", "foreign AI shopping assistant" | **Search results must be integrated into final content as external validation.** **Even if search is limited, try multiple different keywords and inform user of search status.** ### Question Design Principles **1. Question Based on Topic** Questions must be closely tied to the core topic of user input, don't ask irrelevant questions. **2. Framework-Based Design** Use framework thinking to design questions, but don't say "I'm using [Framework Name]". **3. Mix Multiple Choice + Open Questions** - **Multiple Choice**: When there are clear options, need quick classification - **Open Questions**: When need stories/experiences/emotions/details - **Mixed**: After AskUserQuestion "Other" option, continue follow-up questions **4. Progressive Deepening, Dynamic Adjustment** Each round is based on the previous answer, naturally transitioning to the next dimension. Not mechanically following a template. **5. Focus on 1-2 Questions Per Round** Avoid information overload, give user thinking space. **6. Complete Information Before Stopping** Check core dimensions, question what's missing, only generate when complete. ### Completeness Judgment Standards (90+ Point Target) When judging whether information is complete, the skill checks the following dimensions: #### Must Be Complete (Continue questioning if missing, cannot skip) | Dimension | Check Item | Description | |-----------|-----------|-------------| | **Core Viewpoint** | Is the core viewpoint to be expressed clear? | The soul of the article | | **Target Audience** | Is it clear who it's written for? | Determines expression style | | **Publishing Platform** | Is it clear where to publish? | Determines content format | | **Real Cases** | Are there specific examples/experiences? | **Social media required** | | **Emotional Resonance** | Are there resonance points/emotional hooks? | **Social media required** | | **Unique Viewpoints** | Are there insights others haven't mentioned? | **90+ point required** | #### Should Be Complete (Try to question) | Dimension | Check Item | Description | |-----------|-----------|-------------| | **External Validation** | Is there search material to support? | Adds persuasiveness | #### Nice to Have (Better if present) | Dimension | Check Item | Description | |-----------|-----------|-------------| | **Interactive Design** | Is there a clear call to action? | Guide reader participation | | **Style Preference** | What style? | Professional/humorous/story-based | --- ### 90+ Point Content Standards | Score | Characteristics | What's Missing | |-------|----------------|----------------| | **60-70 points** | Clear structure, clear viewpoints | Lacks real cases, emotional resonance | | **80-85 points** | + Real cases, emotional resonance | Lacks uniqueness, external validation | | **90+ points** | + Unique viewpoints, external validation | Nothing missing, polished | **Only enter generation phase when all "must complete" dimensions are present.** **Real cases, emotional resonance, and unique viewpoints are the three pillars of social media content - all are essential.** --- ## Output Format ### Markdown Format Specifications (Required) **All post content must be output in standard Markdown format**, including: | Format Element | Use Case | Example | |----------------|----------|---------| | **Heading Levels** | Main title H1, sections H2-H4 | `# Title` `## Section` | | **Bold Emphasis** | Core viewpoints, keywords | `**Core viewpoint**` | | **Quote Blocks** | Golden sentences, key assertions | `> Quote content` | | **Lists** | Parallel points, step descriptions | `- Item 1` | | **Horizontal Rules** | Separate different parts | `---` | | **Code Blocks** | Technical content, data | ` ```code``` ` | **Pre-output checklist:** - [ ] Clear heading levels (H1 main title, H2 sections, H3 subsections) - [ ] Bold emphasis on core viewpoints - [ ] Quote blocks for golden sentences/key assertions - [ ] Long content in bullet points - [ ] Horizontal rules between sections - [ ] Overall format follows standard Markdown syntax ### Universal Structure ```markdown # [Main Title] Engaging title based on core viewpoint ## [Hook] Attention-grabbing opening Body content... --- ## [Body Part 1] Expand based on framework structure - Framework-guided hierarchical content - Search data-supported viewpoints - Specific cases and stories > Core golden sentence in quote block --- ## [Body Part 2] Continue expansion More content... --- ## [Conclusion] Call to action or summary reinforcement Concluding content... --- **[Tags]** #topic1 #topic2 #topic3 **[Reference Materials]** Data sources cited (if search was used) ``` ### Platform-Adapted Versions | Platform | Word Count | Characteristics | |----------|-----------|-----------------| | WeChat Official Account | 2000+ | In-depth long articles, clear sections, image suggestions | | Xiaohongshu | 500-1000 | Practical content, emoji embellishment, list-style | | Twitter/Weibo | 140-280 | Concise and powerful, one-sentence core, golden sentence style | | LinkedIn/Maimai | 1000-1500 | Professional workplace, industry insights, case support | For detailed structure explanations, refer to `references/post-structures.md` --- ## High-Quality Information Sources The system prioritizes the following types of high-quality sources when searching: | Source Type | Examples | |-------------|----------| | Academic Resources | arXiv, Google Scholar, CNKI | | Industry Reports | McKinsey, Gartner, iResearch | | Professional Technical | Official docs, tech blogs, GitHub | | News Media | Caixin, 36Kr, TechCrunch | | Knowledge Platforms | Wikipedia, Zhihu high-voted, Medium | For detailed data source lists, refer to `references/data-sources.md` --- ## Best Practices 1. **Provide sufficient context** - Even for scattered ideas, try to include key points you care about 2. **Answer questions honestly** - Your answers during interactive questioning directly affect post quality 3. **Define target platform** - Knowing which platform you're posting to can generate more suitable content 4. **Leverage search results** - Materials searched by the system can greatly enrich your content 5. **Compare multiple versions** - Compare outputs from different versions, choose the most suitable 6. **Iterate and optimize** - Continue questioning and optimizing based on generated results --- ## Examples See `examples/` directory for complete usage examples: - `basic-usage.md` - Basic usage examples - `advanced-usage.md` - Advanced scenario examples --- ## Reference Documents - `references/thinking-frameworks.md` - Detailed framework explanations - `references/questioning-strategy.md` - **Continuous progressive questioning strategy (core)** - `references/questioning-modes.md` - **Questioning mode selection guide (new)** - `references/question-templates.md` - Question template library - `references/post-structures.md` - Post structure guide - `references/data-sources.md` - High-quality data source list


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