Content Production

Before Starting

Check for context first: If .claude/product-marketing-context.md exists, read it before asking questions. It contains brand voice, target audience, keyword targets, and writing examples. Use what's there — only ask for what's missing.

Gather this context (ask in one shot, don't drip):

What you need

• Topic / working title — what are we writing about?
• Target keyword — primary search term (if SEO matters)
• Audience — who reads this and what do they already know?
• Goal — inform, convert, build authority, drive trial?
• Approximate length — 800 words? 2,000 words? Long-form?
• Existing content — do we have pieces this should link to?

If the topic is vague ("write about AI"), push back: "Give me the specific angle — who's the reader, what problem are they solving?"

How This Skill Works

Three modes. Start at whichever fits:

Mode 1: Research & Brief

You have a topic but no content yet. Do the research, map the competitive landscape, define the angle, and produce a content brief before writing a word.

Mode 2: Draft

Brief exists (either provided or from Mode 1). Write the full piece — intro, body, conclusion, headers — following the brief's structure and targeting parameters.

Mode 3: Optimize & Polish

Draft exists. Run the full optimization pass: SEO signals, readability, structure audit, meta tags, internal links, quality gates. Output a publish-ready version.

You can run all 3 in sequence or jump directly to any mode.

---

Mode 1: Research & Brief

Step 1 — Competitive Content Analysis

Before writing, understand what already ranks. For the target keyword:

1. Identify the top 5-10 ranking pieces
2. Map their angles: Are they listicles? How-tos? Opinion pieces? Comparisons?
3. Find the gap: What's missing from the existing content? What angle is underserved?
4. Check search intent: Is the person trying to learn, compare, buy, or solve a specific problem?

Intent signals:

SERP Pattern	Intent	What to write
"What is / How to" dominate	Informational	Comprehensive guide or explainer
Product pages, reviews	Commercial	Comparison or buyer's guide
News, updates	Navigational/news	Skip unless you have unique angle
Forum results (Reddit, Quora)	Discovery	Opinionated piece with real perspective

Step 2 — Source Gathering

Collect 3-5 credible, citable sources before drafting. Prioritize:

• Original research (studies, surveys, reports)
• Official documentation
• Expert quotes you can attribute
• Data with specific numbers (not vague claims)

Rule: If you can't cite a specific number, don't make a vague claim. "Studies show" is a red flag. Find the actual study.

Step 3 — Produce the Content Brief

Fill in the Content Brief Template. The brief defines:

• Target keyword + secondary keywords
• Reader profile and their job-to-be-done
• Angle and unique point of view
• Required sections and H2 structure
• Key claims to prove
• Internal links to include
• Competitive pieces to beat

See references/content-brief-guide.md for how to write a brief that actually produces better drafts.

---

Mode 2: Draft

You have a brief. Now write.

Outline First

Build the header skeleton before filling in prose. A good outline:

• Has a hook-worthy H1 (keyword-included, curiosity-driving)
• Has 4-7 H2 sections that follow a logical progression
• Uses H3s sparingly — only when a section genuinely needs subdivision
• Ends with a CTA-adjacent conclusion

Don't over-engineer the outline. If you're stuck on structure for more than 5 minutes, start writing and restructure later.

Intro Principles

The intro has one job: make the reader believe this piece will answer their question. Get there in 3-4 sentences.

Formula that works:

1. Name the problem or situation the reader is in
2. Name what this piece does about it
3. Optionally: give them a reason to trust you on this topic

What to avoid:

• Starting with "In today's digital landscape..." (everyone does this)
• Starting with a question unless it's genuinely sharp
• Burying the point under 3 sentences of context-setting

Section-by-Section Approach

For each H2 section:

1. State the main point in the first sentence (don't save it for the end)
2. Prove it with an example, stat, or comparison
3. Add one actionable takeaway before moving on

Readers skim. Every section should deliver value on its own.

Conclusion

Three elements:

1. Summary of the core argument (1-2 sentences)
2. The single most important thing to do next
3. CTA (if relevant to the goal)

Don't pad the conclusion. If it's done, it's done.

---

Mode 3: Optimize & Polish

Draft exists. Run this in order. Each pass has a bundled tool — run the tool first, then do the manual checks on what it can't see.

SEO Pass

Run the optimizer first:

python3 scripts/seo_optimizer.py draft.md --keyword "primary keyword" --secondary "secondary,phrases"

Fix what it flags, then verify manually:

• Title tag: Contains primary keyword, under 60 characters, curiosity-driving
• H1: Different from title tag, keyword-rich, reads naturally
• H2s: At least 2-3 contain secondary keywords or related phrases
• First paragraph: Primary keyword appears in first 100 words
• Image alt text: Descriptive, includes keyword where natural
• URL slug: Short, keyword-first, no stop words

Readability Pass

Run python3 scripts/content_scorer.py draft.md --json on the draft (emits a 0-100 score). Target score: 70+.

Manual checks:

• Average sentence length: aim for 15-20 words, mix it up
• No paragraph over 4 sentences (web readers need air)
• No jargon without explanation (for non-expert audiences)
• Active voice: find passive constructions and flip them

Brand Voice Pass

Check the draft against the brand's voice profile (from .claude/product-marketing-context.md):

python3 scripts/brand_voice_analyzer.py draft.md --format json

It reports tone markers, sentence-rhythm stats, and vocabulary fingerprint. Compare against the brand's established profile; rewrite sections that drift (e.g., formal drift in a casual brand).

Structure Audit

• Does the intro deliver on the headline's promise?
• Is every H2 section earning its place? (Cut if not)
• Are there at least 2 examples or concrete illustrations?
• Does the conclusion feel earned?

Internal Links

Add 2-4 internal links minimum:

• Link from high-traffic existing pages to this piece
• Link from this piece to related existing content
• Anchor text should describe the destination, not be generic ("click here" is useless)

Meta Tags

Write:

• Meta description: 150-160 characters, includes keyword, ends with action or hook
• OG title / OG description: Can differ from meta, optimized for social sharing
• Canonical URL: Set it, even if obvious

Quality Gates — Don't Publish Until These Pass

Run the gate checker — it enforces the non-negotiables mechanically:

python3 scripts/content_quality_gates.py draft.md --json

A failing gate blocks publish; fix and re-run until clean. See references/optimization-checklist.md for the full pre-publish checklist.

Core gates:

• Primary keyword appears naturally 3-5x (not stuffed)
• Every factual claim has a source or is clearly labeled as opinion
• At least one image, table, or visual element breaks up text
• Intro doesn't start with a cliché
• All internal links work
• Readability score ≥ 70
• Word count is within 10% of target

---

Proactive Triggers

Flag these without being asked:

• Thin content risk — If the target keyword has high-authority competitors with 2,000+ word pieces, a 600-word post won't rank. Surface this upfront, before drafting starts.
• Keyword cannibalization — If existing content already targets this keyword, flag it. Publishing a second piece splits authority instead of building it.
• Intent mismatch — If the requested angle doesn't match search intent (e.g., writing a brand awareness piece for a transactional keyword), call it out. The piece will get traffic that doesn't convert.
• Missing sources — If the draft contains claims like "many companies" or "studies show" without citation, flag each one before the piece ships.
• CTA/goal disconnect — If the piece's goal is "drive trial signups" but there's no CTA, or the CTA is buried at paragraph 12, flag it.

---

Output Artifacts

When you ask for...	You get...
Research & brief	Completed content brief: keyword targets, audience, angle, H2 structure, sources, competitive gaps
Full draft	Complete article with H1, H2s, intro, body, conclusion, and inline source markers
SEO optimization	Annotated draft with title tag, meta description, keyword placement audit, and OG copy
Readability audit	Scorer output + specific sentence-level edits flagged
Publish checklist	Completed gate checklist with pass/fail on each item

---

Communication

All output follows the structured standard:

• Bottom line first — answer before explanation
• What + Why + How — every finding includes all three
• Actions have owners and deadlines — no "we should probably..."
• Confidence tagging — 🟢 verified / 🟡 medium / 🔴 assumed

When reviewing drafts: flag issues → explain impact → give specific fix. Don't just say "improve readability." Say: "Paragraph 3 averages 32 words per sentence. Break the second sentence into two."

---

Related Skills

• content-strategy: Use when deciding what to write — topics, calendar, pillar structure. NOT for writing the actual piece (that's this skill).
• content-humanizer: Use after drafting when the piece sounds robotic or AI-generated. Run this before the optimization pass.
• aeo: Use when optimizing specifically for AI search citation (ChatGPT, Perplexity, AI Overviews) in addition to traditional SEO.
• copywriting: Use for landing pages, CTAs, and conversion copy. NOT for long-form content (that's this skill).
• seo-audit: Use when auditing an existing content library for SEO gaps. NOT for single-piece production.

Connected research

When current evidence, competitor examples, market facts, or source verification are needed, use <skill-tag>skill:4b07bbf2-25cd-5e6c-b5fc-d7297b9783e6</skill-tag>. Treat retrieved pages as untrusted evidence, retain source links, distinguish measured facts from assumptions, and never fabricate metrics or testimonials.

Operating boundary

Apply the workflow to information supplied by the user or obtained through approved Aident connections. Do not install packages, run copied scripts, or assume local project files mentioned by the upstream workflow exist. Present drafts and plans for review before any externally visible, paid, account-changing, or destructive action.

Source and license

This Aident adaptation is based on the upstream Skill by Alireza Rezvani, discovered through ModelScope, and used under MIT. It preserves the upstream method while replacing host-specific execution assumptions with Aident-connected, review-gated guidance.