본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

longread

Write an analytical longform piece — a 4-phase pipeline from raw idea to finished text, with research-backed facts and a devil's-advocate pass before publishing. Invoke /longread <topic>. Triggers — "write a longread about X", "write an analytical breakdown of Y", "write an expert post", "turn this into an article".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Sanexxxx777/curated-claude-code
설치 방법 보기

포함된 파일(1)

  • SKILL.md3.7 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

Longread Writer

A pipeline for analytical writing. Structure first, facts second, voice third, self-critique last. Works for any subject — adapt the sources to the domain.

Output formats

FormatLengthWhere it goes
Short expert post300–600 wordssocial / a channel
Longform post800–1500 wordsblog / newsletter
Deep analytical breakdown1500–3000 wordsa standalone piece
Case study1000–2000 wordsportfolio / blog

Pipeline (4 phases)

Phase 1 — Cheap: angle & structure (don't write yet)

  1. Clarify if unclear: format? audience? any data/insights that must be included?
  2. State the central thesis in one sentence — what the reader walks away with.
  3. Propose a structure (3–5 blocks): 
    Hook: [a provocative fact / question / contradiction]
Block 1: [name]
Block 2: [name]
…
Conclusion / CTA: [what the reader should do]
  4. Show the structure and confirm before Phase 2.

Phase 2 — Research: gather facts

Without specifics, the text is empty. For each block:

  • Find 1–2 key facts/figures.
  • Find 1 concrete example or case.
  • Note the source (URL / dataset / first-hand).

Verification rule: every concrete number needs a source. Can't find one → write [need figure] and move on. Never invent a number.

Phase 3 — Write: section by section

Write in a plain, conversational voice, not an academic one.

  • 2–4 sentences per thought, no more.
  • Concrete: numbers, names, dates — not "many", "often", "significantly".
  • No filler openers ("It should be noted that…", "Thus…").
  • No AI-aesthetic ("In conclusion, it is worth noting…").

Each block's shape:

Claim (1 sentence — the block's point)
Evidence (fact / figure / example)
Why it matters
[transition to the next block]

Write the hook last (once you know what actually grabs after the body is done). Write section by section; show intermediate drafts if approval is useful.

Phase 4 — Devil's advocate: pre-publish check

Ask yourself 5 questions:

  1. "What if I'm wrong?" — is there a counterargument to the thesis? How do you handle it?
  2. "Where do I generalize without data?" — find "many", "as a rule", "obviously" — replace with specifics or cut.
  3. "What won't the reader get?" — any terms unexplained for a non-specialist?
  4. "What's stale?" — any data that may be outdated (>6 months)?
  5. "Why read to the end?" — is there an interest dip in the middle?

Make targeted edits, don't rewrite everything.

Final

  • Title (for a post — first line as a bold headline).
  • The text in the chosen format.
  • If relevant: a note on what illustration/image type fits.

Anti-patterns

  • ❌ Writing without a structure — always Phase 1 first.
  • ❌ Facts without a source — better [need figure] than an invented number.
  • ❌ Academic style ("this work is dedicated to…").
  • ❌ A longread of generalities — if there's no concrete data, say so before writing.
  • ❌ Skipping the devil's-advocate pass — that's where the weak spots are.

Examples of a strong hook

  • "A prediction market paid traders $2.3M in one day. Half of it went to 12 wallets."
  • "Everyone knows BTC correlates with macro. Nobody says how much — by timeframe it runs from 0.1 to 0.9."
  • A specific number + a specific stake beats any abstract claim.

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

goal

무료

Autonomous goal loop — give it ONE goal plus how to verify it, the agent runs check→fix→check itself and comes back only with the finished result (code with audit, research with fact-check, content with critique, audit/backtest). Self-verification instead of constant supervision, with hard safety guards. Vary the loop with a verification rubric designed before it runs. Triggers — "work autonomously to the result", "don't come back until it's done", "run the loop yourself", "drive it to done".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Sanexxxx777/curated-claude-code162026년 9월 7일 업데이트

konsilium

무료

Council — 5 independent AI perspectives + mutual critique + synthesis (adapted from karpathy/llm-council for Claude Code). For high-stakes decisions where the answer does NOT follow unambiguously from the data — go/no-go before real consequences, critiquing a methodology, choosing between competing approaches, pressure-testing a conclusion you're attached to, designing risk controls. NOT for log/data analysis (the council has no data access) and not for factual lookups. Triggers — "convene the council", "run it past the council", "go/no-go", "pressure-test this".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Sanexxxx777/curated-claude-code162026년 9월 7일 업데이트

pre-push

무료

A gate before git push / deploy — assembled from your own tools (secret-grep + slop-scan + code-review + build/compile + optional worktree isolation), so AI junk (slop / bugs / secrets / uncompiled code) never reaches a remote or a production server. Turns "I hope it's clean" into a verifiable criterion. Branches: web/OSS (git push/PR) vs deploy-to-server service. Triggers — "check before push", "clean push", "gate before push", "finalize before commit", "run before deploy".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Sanexxxx777/curated-claude-code162026년 9월 7일 업데이트

proof

무료

Prove — or honestly fail to prove — a specific technical claim: "the fix works", "it's deployed", "the service is running", "the site is done", "there are no vulnerabilities". Atomizes the claim, picks the shortest decisive signal on the evidence ladder, and returns a verdict from a fixed vocabulary (pass / partial / fail / skip) with an explicit coverage boundary. NOT code review, NOT a fix, NOT orchestration — only "what is proven, and what we merely hope". Triggers — "prove it works", "is it really done?", "are you sure?", "we deployed — is it live?", "verify that", "did we actually check?".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Sanexxxx777/curated-claude-code162026년 9월 7일 업데이트

ship-secure

무료

Security launch audit for a public web app BEFORE you ship or hand it to a client — "vibe coders are getting sued", systematized. An executable pipeline: classify (static / full-stack / AI) → run sections (secrets+supply-chain, DB, auth, infra+headers, legal, LLM/injection) orchestrating deterministic tools + manual checks → GO/NO-GO report. Adapted from Prajwal Tomar's playbook, extended with prompt-injection / supply-chain / secret-history / dependency-CVE layers. NOT the same as pre-push (that = clean push; this = is the product itself safe to launch). Triggers — "security checklist for the site", "audit before launch", "is the site safe", "check before handing to client".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Sanexxxx777/curated-claude-code162026년 9월 7일 업데이트

system-health

무료

Preventive hygiene audit of your own Claude Code configuration — memory files, project context (CLAUDE.md), rules, permissions, skills — a deterministic scan of sizes / broken links / stale entries / excessive permissions / junk + interpretation + targeted fixes by agreement. Keeps the setup from rotting before it breaks. Triggers — "check the system", "system health", "workflow hygiene", "what to clean up", "audit memory", "optimize the system".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Sanexxxx777/curated-claude-code162026년 9월 7일 업데이트

Sanexxxx777의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고