Content eval skill
Generate and score content ideas using an expert panel.
by ericosiu·MIT license·★ 3,615 Stars on the repo·GitHub ↗
npx degit ericosiu/ai-marketing-skills/content-eval#main ~/.claude/skills/content-evalChecked ·commit main
Files of Content eval
Show the full text217 lines
name: content-eval description: >- Generate and score content ideas using an expert panel. Pulls from podcast transcripts, meeting notes, competitor analysis, and trending topics to produce a ranked content menu with production schedule. Use when asked to: "content eval", "score content ideas", "weekly content menu", "what should I film", "content ideas", "rate these video ideas".
Content Eval
Content ideation + expert panel scoring pipeline. Ingests raw material, generates ideas across your messaging pillars, scores them via a 7-expert panel, and outputs a ranked list with production schedule.
Step 1: Gather Raw Material
Collect signal from all available sources. Skip any source that's unavailable.
Podcast episodes
- Read recent episodes from your podcast transcript directory (last 7 days)
- Extract: topics covered, guest insights, audience questions, contrarian takes
- Note episode titles for dedup against new ideas
Meeting notes
- Check your meeting notes directory for recent notes
- Extract: client questions, recurring themes, interesting moments, pain points
- Focus on what your target buyers are actually asking about
Sales call insights
- Check your call recording platform data for recent calls
- Extract: objection patterns, recurring questions, competitor mentions
- Note what prospects are confused about or struggling with
Trending topics
- Note any topics the user mentions directly
- Check competitor scan results (Step 2) for trending formats/topics
- Look for news hooks or industry shifts you could react to
Step 2: Competitive Scan (if not provided)
If the user hasn't supplied competitive data, run a scan using your YouTube competitive analysis tool.
Channel sets are defined in references/competitors.md (same directory as this skill).
Analyze results
- Outlier videos: Identify any video with >2x the channel's average views
- Topic patterns: What subjects are multiple creators covering?
- Format patterns: What formats are performing (listicles, reactions, tutorials, story-driven)?
- Content gaps: Topics where NO competitor is covering something you could own
- Especially gaps at the intersection of your unique expertise areas
- Or gaps where you have unique data (revenue numbers, internal metrics, tool costs)
If your competitive analysis tool is not available, skip this step and note it was skipped.
Step 3: Generate Ideas
Generate 20-30 content ideas across three formats. Read references/pillars.md for
pillar definitions and references/voice-rules.md for content voice rules.
Format targets
| Format | Count | Details |
|---|---|---|
| YouTube Long-form (10-20 min) | 8-10 ideas | Deep dives, screen recordings, frameworks |
| YouTube Shorts (<60 sec) | 8-10 ideas | One punch, one insight, one hook |
| X / LinkedIn Articles | 5-7 ideas | Manifesto-style, data-heavy, contrarian takes |
Pillar requirement
Every idea MUST connect to at least one pillar defined in references/pillars.md.
Ideas that don't clearly serve a pillar get killed.
Idea format
Each idea needs:
- Title — specific, hook-driven, follows voice-rules.md
- Description — 1-2 sentences on the content and angle
- Format — Long-form / Short / Article
- Pillar(s) — which pillar(s) it serves
- Source signal — what raw material inspired it (podcast topic, competitor gap, client question, etc.)
Dedup check
- Check recent published content (last 30 days)
- If a similar angle was covered recently, either kill it or document a genuinely new hook
- Apply the dedup rule from
references/voice-rules.md
Manual override
If the user passes specific ideas to score (e.g., "score these content ideas: [list]"), skip idea generation and go directly to Step 4 with the provided ideas.
Step 4: Expert Panel Scoring
Run each idea through the 7-expert panel defined in references/panel.md.
Panel summary
| # | Expert | Lens |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Viral Hook Expert | Curiosity gap, scroll-stopping power, title strength |
| 2 | Algorithm Expert | CTR potential, watch time, search demand, recommendation likelihood |
| 3 | Founder Brand Strategist | Pillar alignment, authenticity to founder's voice/experience |
| 4 | B2B Buyer Persona Expert | Would a CMO/VP/CEO watch and want what you're selling? |
| 5 | Content Differentiation Expert | Is anyone else making this? Unique angle? |
| 6 | Short-form Adaptation Expert | Can it clip into 3+ viral Shorts? Quotable moments? |
| 7 | Debate/Engagement Expert | Comments, shares, disagreements potential |
Scoring rules
- Each expert scores 0-100
- Pass threshold: 85+ average
- For each idea, output:
- Average score across all 7 experts
- PASS / FAIL
- Top expert comment (the most insightful feedback)
- Biggest weakness (the lowest-scoring dimension and why)
Output table per idea
### [Idea Title] — [Format]
**Pillar(s):** [pillar names]
**Description:** [1-2 sentences]
| Expert | Score | Comment |
|--------|-------|---------|
| Viral Hook | [score] | [one-line] |
| Algorithm | [score] | [one-line] |
| Brand Strategist | [score] | [one-line] |
| B2B Buyer | [score] | [one-line] |
| Differentiation | [score] | [one-line] |
| Short-form | [score] | [one-line] |
| Debate/Engagement | [score] | [one-line] |
**Average: [score] — [PASS / FAIL]**
**Top insight:** [best expert comment]
**Biggest weakness:** [lowest dimension + why]
Scoring integrity
- Be brutally honest. No grade inflation.
- Generic ideas that anyone could make should score <70 on Differentiation.
- Ideas without personal receipts/data should score <75 on Brand Strategist.
- If an idea is genuinely great, let it score high. The threshold exists so only the best survive.
Step 5: Rank and Schedule
Rank passing ideas
Sort all ideas scoring 85+ by average score, highest first.
Create 4-week production schedule
Assign passing ideas to weeks based on effort vs impact:
| Week | Focus | Typical content |
|---|---|---|
| Week 1 | Low effort, high impact | Shorts that can ship same day, reaction clips |
| Week 2 | Medium effort, highest ceiling | Long-form with screen recordings, tutorials |
| Week 3 | High effort, strategic anchors | Articles, manifesto pieces, deep-dive frameworks |
| Week 4 | Compounding content | Reference pieces, reaction content, series starters |
Kill list
List all ideas that scored <85 with:
- Title
- Average score
- Primary reason for failure (the expert dimension that killed it)
Step 6: Output
Create a document with the full results.
Document structure:
- Executive Summary — Total ideas generated, pass rate, top 5
- Competitive Gaps Found — What no one else is covering
- Ranked Ideas (Passing) — Full scoring tables for each
- 4-Week Production Schedule — Visual calendar layout
- Kill List — Failed ideas with reasons
- Raw Material Summary — Sources used (podcasts, meetings, calls, trends)
Optionally post a summary to your team channel with:
- Top 5 ideas (title, score, format, pillar)
- Competitive gaps found (2-3 bullets)
- Week 1 production schedule (what to film/write this week)
- Link to the full document
Reference Files
| File | Purpose | When to read |
|---|---|---|
references/pillars.md |
Messaging pillar definitions | Step 3 (idea generation) |
references/panel.md |
7-expert panel with scoring criteria | Step 4 (scoring) |
references/competitors.md |
YouTube competitor channel sets | Step 2 (competitive scan) |
references/voice-rules.md |
Content voice/style rules | Step 3 (idea generation) |
| 1 | |
| 2 | |
| 3 | ## Preamble (runs on skill start) |
| 4 | |
| 5 | |
| 6 | # Version check (silent if up to date) |
| 7 | python3 telemetry/version_check.py 2>/dev/null || true |
| 8 | |
| 9 | # Telemetry opt-in (first run only, then remembers your choice) |
| 10 | python3 telemetry/telemetry_init.py 2>/dev/null || true |
| 11 | |
| 12 | |
| 13 | > **Privacy:** This skill logs usage locally to `~/.ai-marketing-skills/analytics/`. Remote telemetry is opt-in only. No code, file paths, or repo content is ever collected. See `telemetry/README.md`. |
| 14 | |
| 15 | |
| 16 | name: content-eval |
| 17 | description: >- |
| 18 | Generate and score content ideas using an expert panel. Pulls from podcast |
| 19 | transcripts, meeting notes, competitor analysis, and trending topics to |
| 20 | produce a ranked content menu with production schedule. Use when asked to: |
| 21 | "content eval", "score content ideas", "weekly content menu", "what should |
| 22 | I film", "content ideas", "rate these video ideas". |
| 23 | |
| 24 | |
| 25 | # Content Eval |
| 26 | |
| 27 | Content ideation + expert panel scoring pipeline. Ingests raw material, generates |
| 28 | ideas across your messaging pillars, scores them via a 7-expert panel, and |
| 29 | outputs a ranked list with production schedule. |
| 30 | |
| 31 | |
| 32 | |
| 33 | ## Step 1: Gather Raw Material |
| 34 | |
| 35 | Collect signal from all available sources. Skip any source that's unavailable. |
| 36 | |
| 37 | ### Podcast episodes |
| 38 | Read recent episodes from your podcast transcript directory (last 7 days) |
| 39 | Extract: topics covered, guest insights, audience questions, contrarian takes |
| 40 | Note episode titles for dedup against new ideas |
| 41 | |
| 42 | ### Meeting notes |
| 43 | Check your meeting notes directory for recent notes |
| 44 | Extract: client questions, recurring themes, interesting moments, pain points |
| 45 | Focus on what your target buyers are actually asking about |
| 46 | |
| 47 | ### Sales call insights |
| 48 | Check your call recording platform data for recent calls |
| 49 | Extract: objection patterns, recurring questions, competitor mentions |
| 50 | Note what prospects are confused about or struggling with |
| 51 | |
| 52 | ### Trending topics |
| 53 | Note any topics the user mentions directly |
| 54 | Check competitor scan results (Step 2) for trending formats/topics |
| 55 | Look for news hooks or industry shifts you could react to |
| 56 | |
| 57 | |
| 58 | |
| 59 | ## Step 2: Competitive Scan (if not provided) |
| 60 | |
| 61 | If the user hasn't supplied competitive data, run a scan using your YouTube |
| 62 | competitive analysis tool. |
| 63 | |
| 64 | Channel sets are defined in `references/competitors.md` (same directory as this skill). |
| 65 | |
| 66 | ### Analyze results |
| 67 | **Outlier videos:** Identify any video with >2x the channel's average views |
| 68 | **Topic patterns:** What subjects are multiple creators covering? |
| 69 | **Format patterns:** What formats are performing (listicles, reactions, tutorials, story-driven)? |
| 70 | **Content gaps:** Topics where NO competitor is covering something you could own |
| 71 | Especially gaps at the intersection of your unique expertise areas |
| 72 | Or gaps where you have unique data (revenue numbers, internal metrics, tool costs) |
| 73 | |
| 74 | If your competitive analysis tool is not available, skip this step and note it was skipped. |
| 75 | |
| 76 | |
| 77 | |
| 78 | ## Step 3: Generate Ideas |
| 79 | |
| 80 | Generate 20-30 content ideas across three formats. Read `references/pillars.md` for |
| 81 | pillar definitions and `references/voice-rules.md` for content voice rules. |
| 82 | |
| 83 | ### Format targets |
| 84 | | Format | Count | Details | |
| 85 | |--------|-------|---------| |
| 86 | | YouTube Long-form (10-20 min) | 8-10 ideas | Deep dives, screen recordings, frameworks | |
| 87 | | YouTube Shorts (<60 sec) | 8-10 ideas | One punch, one insight, one hook | |
| 88 | | X / LinkedIn Articles | 5-7 ideas | Manifesto-style, data-heavy, contrarian takes | |
| 89 | |
| 90 | ### Pillar requirement |
| 91 | Every idea MUST connect to at least one pillar defined in `references/pillars.md`. |
| 92 | Ideas that don't clearly serve a pillar get killed. |
| 93 | |
| 94 | ### Idea format |
| 95 | Each idea needs: |
| 96 | **Title** — specific, hook-driven, follows voice-rules.md |
| 97 | **Description** — 1-2 sentences on the content and angle |
| 98 | **Format** — Long-form / Short / Article |
| 99 | **Pillar(s)** — which pillar(s) it serves |
| 100 | **Source signal** — what raw material inspired it (podcast topic, competitor gap, client question, etc.) |
| 101 | |
| 102 | ### Dedup check |
| 103 | Check recent published content (last 30 days) |
| 104 | If a similar angle was covered recently, either kill it or document a genuinely new hook |
| 105 | Apply the dedup rule from `references/voice-rules.md` |
| 106 | |
| 107 | ### Manual override |
| 108 | If the user passes specific ideas to score (e.g., "score these content ideas: [list]"), |
| 109 | skip idea generation and go directly to Step 4 with the provided ideas. |
| 110 | |
| 111 | |
| 112 | |
| 113 | ## Step 4: Expert Panel Scoring |
| 114 | |
| 115 | Run each idea through the 7-expert panel defined in `references/panel.md`. |
| 116 | |
| 117 | ### Panel summary |
| 118 | | # | Expert | Lens | |
| 119 | |---|--------|------| |
| 120 | | 1 | Viral Hook Expert | Curiosity gap, scroll-stopping power, title strength | |
| 121 | | 2 | Algorithm Expert | CTR potential, watch time, search demand, recommendation likelihood | |
| 122 | | 3 | Founder Brand Strategist | Pillar alignment, authenticity to founder's voice/experience | |
| 123 | | 4 | B2B Buyer Persona Expert | Would a CMO/VP/CEO watch and want what you're selling? | |
| 124 | | 5 | Content Differentiation Expert | Is anyone else making this? Unique angle? | |
| 125 | | 6 | Short-form Adaptation Expert | Can it clip into 3+ viral Shorts? Quotable moments? | |
| 126 | | 7 | Debate/Engagement Expert | Comments, shares, disagreements potential | |
| 127 | |
| 128 | ### Scoring rules |
| 129 | Each expert scores 0-100 |
| 130 | **Pass threshold: 85+ average** |
| 131 | For each idea, output: |
| 132 | Average score across all 7 experts |
| 133 | PASS / FAIL |
| 134 | Top expert comment (the most insightful feedback) |
| 135 | Biggest weakness (the lowest-scoring dimension and why) |
| 136 | |
| 137 | ### Output table per idea |
| 138 | |
| 139 | ### [Idea Title] — [Format] |
| 140 | **Pillar(s):** [pillar names] |
| 141 | **Description:** [1-2 sentences] |
| 142 | |
| 143 | | Expert | Score | Comment | |
| 144 | |--------|-------|---------| |
| 145 | | Viral Hook | [score] | [one-line] | |
| 146 | | Algorithm | [score] | [one-line] | |
| 147 | | Brand Strategist | [score] | [one-line] | |
| 148 | | B2B Buyer | [score] | [one-line] | |
| 149 | | Differentiation | [score] | [one-line] | |
| 150 | | Short-form | [score] | [one-line] | |
| 151 | | Debate/Engagement | [score] | [one-line] | |
| 152 | |
| 153 | **Average: [score] — [PASS / FAIL]** |
| 154 | **Top insight:** [best expert comment] |
| 155 | **Biggest weakness:** [lowest dimension + why] |
| 156 | |
| 157 | |
| 158 | ### Scoring integrity |
| 159 | Be brutally honest. No grade inflation. |
| 160 | Generic ideas that anyone could make should score <70 on Differentiation. |
| 161 | Ideas without personal receipts/data should score <75 on Brand Strategist. |
| 162 | If an idea is genuinely great, let it score high. The threshold exists so only the best survive. |
| 163 | |
| 164 | |
| 165 | |
| 166 | ## Step 5: Rank and Schedule |
| 167 | |
| 168 | ### Rank passing ideas |
| 169 | Sort all ideas scoring 85+ by average score, highest first. |
| 170 | |
| 171 | ### Create 4-week production schedule |
| 172 | Assign passing ideas to weeks based on effort vs impact: |
| 173 | |
| 174 | | Week | Focus | Typical content | |
| 175 | |------|-------|-----------------| |
| 176 | | Week 1 | Low effort, high impact | Shorts that can ship same day, reaction clips | |
| 177 | | Week 2 | Medium effort, highest ceiling | Long-form with screen recordings, tutorials | |
| 178 | | Week 3 | High effort, strategic anchors | Articles, manifesto pieces, deep-dive frameworks | |
| 179 | | Week 4 | Compounding content | Reference pieces, reaction content, series starters | |
| 180 | |
| 181 | ### Kill list |
| 182 | List all ideas that scored <85 with: |
| 183 | Title |
| 184 | Average score |
| 185 | Primary reason for failure (the expert dimension that killed it) |
| 186 | |
| 187 | |
| 188 | |
| 189 | ## Step 6: Output |
| 190 | |
| 191 | Create a document with the full results. |
| 192 | |
| 193 | Document structure: |
| 194 | **Executive Summary** — Total ideas generated, pass rate, top 5 |
| 195 | **Competitive Gaps Found** — What no one else is covering |
| 196 | **Ranked Ideas (Passing)** — Full scoring tables for each |
| 197 | **4-Week Production Schedule** — Visual calendar layout |
| 198 | **Kill List** — Failed ideas with reasons |
| 199 | **Raw Material Summary** — Sources used (podcasts, meetings, calls, trends) |
| 200 | |
| 201 | Optionally post a summary to your team channel with: |
| 202 | Top 5 ideas (title, score, format, pillar) |
| 203 | Competitive gaps found (2-3 bullets) |
| 204 | Week 1 production schedule (what to film/write this week) |
| 205 | Link to the full document |
| 206 | |
| 207 | |
| 208 | |
| 209 | ## Reference Files |
| 210 | |
| 211 | | File | Purpose | When to read | |
| 212 | |------|---------|--------------| |
| 213 | | `references/pillars.md` | Messaging pillar definitions | Step 3 (idea generation) | |
| 214 | | `references/panel.md` | 7-expert panel with scoring criteria | Step 4 (scoring) | |
| 215 | | `references/competitors.md` | YouTube competitor channel sets | Step 2 (competitive scan) | |
| 216 | | `references/voice-rules.md` | Content voice/style rules | Step 3 (idea generation) | |
| 217 |
Discussion
Browse more free Claude skills.