Business & Productivity
Assists in writing high-quality content by conducting research, adding citations, improving hooks, iterating on outlines, and providing real-time feedback on each section. Transforms your writing process from solo effort to collaborative partnership.
Skills are markdown files that extend Claude's knowledge. Place them in ~/.claude/skills/ to make them available. Claude reads relevant skills automatically based on context.
Step 1: Create the skill directory
Step 2: Save SKILL.md to
# Content Research Writer
This skill acts as your writing partner, helping you research, outline, draft, and refine content while maintaining your unique voice and style.
Create a dedicated folder for your article:
mkdir ~/writing/my-article-title
cd ~/writing/my-article-title
Create your draft file:
touch article-draft.md
Open Claude Code from this directory and start writing.
Help me create an outline for an article about [topic]
Research [specific topic] and add citations to my outline
Here's my introduction. Help me make the hook more compelling.
I just finished the "Why This Matters" section. Review it and give feedback.
Review the full draft for flow, clarity, and consistency.
When a user requests writing assistance:
Ask clarifying questions:
- What's the topic and main argument?
- Who's the target audience?
- What's the desired length/format?
- What's your goal? (educate, persuade, entertain, explain)
- Any existing research or sources to include?
- What's your writing style? (formal, conversational, technical)
Help structure the content:
```markdown
# Article Outline: [Title]
## Hook
- [Opening line/story/statistic]
- [Why reader should care]
## Introduction
- Context and background
- Problem statement
- What this article covers
## Main Sections
### Section 1: [Title]
- Key point A
- Key point B
- Example/evidence
- [Research needed: specific topic]
### Section 2: [Title]
- Key point C
- Key point D
- Data/citation needed
### Section 3: [Title]
- Key point E
- Counter-arguments
- Resolution
## Conclusion
- Summary of main points
- Call to action
- Final thought
## Research To-Do
- [ ] Find data on [topic]
- [ ] Get examples of [concept]
- [ ] Source citation for [claim]
```
**Iterate on outline**:
- Adjust based on feedback
- Ensure logical flow
- Identify research gaps
- Mark sections for deep dives
When user requests research on a topic:
- Search for relevant information
- Find credible sources
- Extract key facts, quotes, and data
- Add citations in requested format
Example output:
```markdown
## Research: AI Impact on Productivity
Key Findings:
1. **Productivity Gains**: Studies show 40% time savings for
content creation tasks [1]
2. **Adoption Rates**: 67% of knowledge workers use AI tools
weekly [2]
3. **Expert Quote**: "AI augments rather than replaces human
creativity" - Dr. Jane Smith, MIT [3]
Citations:
[1] McKinsey Global Institute. (2024). "The Economic Potential
of Generative AI"
[2] Stack Overflow Developer Survey (2024)
[3] Smith, J. (2024). MIT Technology Review interview
Added to outline under Section 2.
```
When user shares an introduction, analyze and strengthen:
**Current Hook Analysis**:
- What works: [positive elements]
- What could be stronger: [areas for improvement]
- Emotional impact: [current vs. potential]
**Suggested Alternatives**:
Option 1: [Bold statement]
> [Example]
*Why it works: [explanation]*
Option 2: [Personal story]
> [Example]
*Why it works: [explanation]*
Option 3: [Surprising data]
> [Example]
*Why it works: [explanation]*
**Questions to hook**:
- Does it create curiosity?
- Does it promise value?
- Is it specific enough?
- Does it match the audience?
As user writes each section, review for:
```markdown
# Feedback: [Section Name]
## What Works Well ✓
- [Strength 1]
- [Strength 2]
- [Strength 3]
## Suggestions for Improvement
### Clarity
- [Specific issue] → [Suggested fix]
- [Complex sentence] → [Simpler alternative]
### Flow
- [Transition issue] → [Better connection]
- [Paragraph order] → [Suggested reordering]
### Evidence
- [Claim needing support] → [Add citation or example]
- [Generic statement] → [Make more specific]
### Style
- [Tone inconsistency] → [Match your voice better]
- [Word choice] → [Stronger alternative]
## Specific Line Edits
Original:
> [Exact quote from draft]
Suggested:
> [Improved version]
Why: [Explanation]
## Questions to Consider
- [Thought-provoking question 1]
- [Thought-provoking question 2]
Ready to move to next section!
```
Important principles:
- **Learn their style**: Read existing writing samples
- **Suggest, don't replace**: Offer options, not directives
- **Match tone**: Formal, casual, technical, friendly
- **Respect choices**: If they prefer their version, support it
- **Enhance, don't override**: Make their writing better, not different
Ask periodically:
- "Does this sound like you?"
- "Is this the right tone?"
- "Should I be more/less [formal/casual/technical]?"
Handle references based on user preference:
**Inline Citations**:
```markdown
Studies show 40% productivity improvement (McKinsey, 2024).
```
**Numbered References**:
```markdown
Studies show 40% productivity improvement [1].
[1] McKinsey Global Institute. (2024)...
```
**Footnote Style**:
```markdown
Studies show 40% productivity improvement^1
^1: McKinsey Global Institute. (2024)...
```
Maintain a running citations list:
```markdown
## References
1. Author. (Year). "Title". Publication.
2. Author. (Year). "Title". Publication.
...
```
When draft is complete, provide comprehensive feedback:
```markdown
# Full Draft Review
## Overall Assessment
**Strengths**:
- [Major strength 1]
- [Major strength 2]
- [Major strength 3]
**Impact**: [Overall effectiveness assessment]
## Structure & Flow
- [Comments on organization]
- [Transition quality]
- [Pacing assessment]
## Content Quality
- [Argument strength]
- [Evidence sufficiency]
- [Example effectiveness]
## Technical Quality
- Grammar and mechanics: [assessment]
- Consistency: [assessment]
- Citations: [completeness check]
## Readability
- Clarity score: [evaluation]
- Sentence variety: [evaluation]
- Paragraph length: [evaluation]
## Final Polish Suggestions
1. **Introduction**: [Specific improvements]
2. **Body**: [Specific improvements]
3. **Conclusion**: [Specific improvements]
4. **Title**: [Options if needed]
## Pre-Publish Checklist
- [ ] All claims sourced
- [ ] Citations formatted
- [ ] Examples clear
- [ ] Transitions smooth
- [ ] Call to action present
- [ ] Proofread for typos
Ready to publish! 🚀
```
**User**: "I'm writing an article about continuous discovery. Help me create an outline."
**Process**:
**Result**: Well-researched, properly cited article written in Teresa's voice with strong structure and flow.
**User**: "I'm writing about AI's impact on product management. Help me find current data and examples."
**Output**:
- Result: 60% time savings
- Source: [citation]
- Result: Better stakeholder alignment
- Source: [citation]
All added to your outline with proper citations.
**User's Original Hook**:
> "Product management is changing because of AI. In this article, I'll discuss some ways AI affects product managers."
**Improved Options**:
**Option 1 (Data-driven)**:
> "Last month, I asked AI to analyze 500 customer interviews. It took 30 minutes instead of 3 weeks. Product management will never be the same."
**Option 2 (Question)**:
> "What if you could talk to every customer, read every review, and analyze every support ticket—all before your morning coffee?"
**Option 3 (Story)**:
> "Sarah spent two weeks building the wrong feature. Not because she didn't understand her users, but because she couldn't process the hundreds of interviews fast enough to spot the pattern."
**User**: "Just finished my 'Common Mistakes' section. Thoughts?"
**Response**:
# Feedback: Common Mistakes Section
Your second point says "Bad prioritization" but could be stronger:
Current:
> "Many teams prioritize badly by focusing on features instead of outcomes."
Suggested:
> "I've watched teams ship 14 features in a quarter yet move none of their key metrics. They prioritized activity over progress."
The third mistake would benefit from evidence:
> "[Add citation]: Studies show teams without regular user contact are 3x more likely to build unused features [needs source]"
Consider reordering: Mistake 3 → Mistake 2 → Mistake 1
This builds from small to big impact.
Ready for the next section!
Recommended structure for writing projects:
~/writing/article-name/
├── outline.md # Your outline
├── research.md # All research and citations
├── draft-v1.md # First draft
├── draft-v2.md # Revised draft
├── final.md # Publication-ready
├── feedback.md # Collected feedback
└── sources/ # Reference materials
├── study1.pdf
└── article2.md