关于
This skill creates an editorial pipeline for AI content agents, assigning six distinct roles with contracts to transform a single piece into varied, high-quality assets. It's designed to fix generic, duplicated, or unsourced output by using an inspectable record that moves through a structured workflow. Use it when building an agent-run content team or needing one flagship piece to fuel a week of unique, argued distribution.
快速安装
Claude Code
推荐npx skills add JasonColapietro/suede-creator-skills -a claude-code/plugin add https://github.com/JasonColapietro/suede-creator-skillsgit clone https://github.com/JasonColapietro/suede-creator-skills.git ~/.claude/skills/suede-newsroom在 Claude Code 中复制并粘贴此命令以安装该技能
技能文档
Suede Newsroom
Six chatbots pointed at the same brand are not a content team. A newsroom is the loop that connects them, and every arrow in it is a handoff with a contract:
idea -> research -> angle -> flagship -> distribution -> review -> performance -> playbooks
Break one arrow and the failure is predictable, not mysterious:
| Broken arrow | What ships instead |
|---|---|
| research never reaches the strategist | a generic angle any competitor could have written |
| the writer never sees the evidence packet | claims that drift one step past what the source says |
| distribution starts from the finished draft | five surfaces carrying the same shortened article |
| performance never reaches the playbooks | the same mistake repeated at a higher cadence |
This skill owns the pipeline: who decides what, what travels between them, and
how one idea becomes several assets that argue different things. Read
.agents/product-marketing.md first if it exists — it holds product, audience,
positioning, and proof, and nothing here restates it.
Step 1 — Put the campaign in a file, not a conversation
One record per campaign at .agents/newsroom/<slug>.md. It is the only thing
that has to survive between roles, sessions, and restarts.
A conversation between roles has two failure modes a file does not: context dies on restart, and the next role has to infer which sentences were load-bearing. The record gives each role a predictable input and lets a human audit a campaign without reopening six sessions.
Keep it narrow — decisions and the evidence behind them. Drafts live beside it, not in it. The template and per-stage completion rules are in references/campaign-record.md.
Step 2 — Give each role one decision to own
The fastest way to ruin a multi-agent content team is to hand every role the same instruction: make great content. Each role gets one decision, one artifact, and a named point where it stops.
| Role | Owns | Returns | Hands to |
|---|---|---|---|
| Signal scout | whether an idea has a reason to exist now | scored candidates | researcher |
| Researcher | what is verified versus inferred | evidence packet | strategist |
| Strategist | the single editorial angle | angle brief | writer |
| Writer | the deepest version of the idea | flagship piece | distribution |
| Distribution | what each surface argues | asset set with entryways | editor |
| Editor | whether the package holds together | approve, revise, or reject | human |
Every contract fills five fields — owns, reads, returns, must
not, done when. Full text for all six, with the must not and done when
clauses, is in references/role-contracts.md. Copy
them in verbatim; a paraphrased must not is how a writer starts picking angles.
Thresholds that make the contracts checkable:
- Scout returns at most three candidates, each with a decay window, and names a rejection reason for every candidate it discarded. A run that approves everything it found did not filter anything.
- Researcher returns three to seven verified claims, a URL for every claim with
consequence, and an explicit
what the sources do not provelist. - Strategist returns exactly one recommended angle plus at least two named rejected directions and why each is weaker. A menu pushes the decision back to the human, which is the decision this role exists to make.
- Distribution returns one entryway per asset and no entryway twice.
- Editor reviews the assets together in one pass, never one at a time.
Step 3 — Gate every handoff
A stage is complete when every field it owns is filled and readable by the next role — not drafted, not discussed. Written into the record.
Return-to-sender. When a field the current stage needs is empty, the role sends the record back and names the field. It does not fill the gap with a plausible assumption. A pipeline whose roles patch each other's gaps produces confident output with no traceable source, which is worse than a stalled campaign because nothing signals the problem.
Halt format. Stop. Name the empty field and the stage that owns it in one line. Offer the human these options and wait: (1) supply the field now, (2) send the record back one stage for another attempt, (3) narrow the campaign until the field is unnecessary, or (4) kill it. Do not advance the record, and do not present a partial package as complete.
Two returns on the same field means the pipeline cannot supply it. Escalate rather than attempting a third pass — a third attempt on the same gap is where fabrication starts.
Step 4 — Distribute by argument, not by format
This is the stage that fails most often, and it fails quietly.
An article does not become a short post by losing 1,500 words, and a newsletter does not become a carousel because its paragraphs were laid onto slides. Both moves produce assets carrying the same argument at different lengths — which is why a week of them reads like one post repeated.
Work from the angle brief, not the finished draft. A draft carries one argument, so anything derived from it inherits that argument. Reading the draft first is the mechanism that produces shortened articles.
Assign one entryway per asset
| Entryway | The argument it makes | Needs |
|---|---|---|
| Proof | this is real, and here is the artifact | something a stranger can check |
| Mechanism | here is why it works | a causal chain, not a description |
| Workflow | you can run this today | ordered steps someone could follow |
| Risk | here is what breaks, and when | a named failure mode with its trigger |
| Result | here is what it produced | an outcome plus its conditions |
| Critique | the common approach is worse than it looks | the real default, and how it fails |
| Compression | here is the whole shape | the idea reduced to one line or image |
One entryway per asset. An asset carrying two is a shortened article wearing a label. An entryway the source cannot supply is unavailable — report it and say what evidence would unlock it, rather than inventing an artifact to fill it.
Worked examples, surface fit, and the failure mode each entryway falls into are in references/entryways.md.
Score each asset for standing alone
Three checks, one point each, run against the whole set:
| Check | Passes when |
|---|---|
| New information | it carries a claim, step, number, or object no other asset carries |
| Second reader | someone who already read the flagship still gets something; "more at the link" is not something |
| Removal | deleting it costs the campaign a specific, nameable thing |
3 ships. 2 goes back for revision, naming the failed check. 0–1 gets cut, and say what the set loses — usually nothing.
Run the collision gate
Reduce each asset to one sentence first; comparing full drafts hides collisions.
- Claim collision — two assets whose central claim is the same sentence.
- Opening collision — the same story, statistic, or line opens two assets. The most common, and the most visible to anyone following on two surfaces.
- Entryway collision — the same entryway used twice.
Halt format. Stop. Name the two assets, the collision type, and the shared sentence. Offer: (1) reassign one to an unused entryway, (2) cut the weaker and say what the set loses, or (3) record it as a deliberate repeat with a reason. Wait. Do not resolve a collision by rewording — the claim underneath is what collides.
Fewer surfaces than entryways is normal. Three assets with three distinct entryways beats seven assets with two.
Step 5 — Keep the human at the editorial boundary
The first version prepares everything and publishes nothing. The human approves the angle, the flagship draft, every consequential factual claim, every public post, any change to voice or offer, and any performance lesson before it becomes a standing rule.
Each approval and rejection is a labelled example of the human's judgment. When the same decision comes back the same way three campaigns running, move it into the editor's review rules so it is applied before the human sees the package.
Move publishing authority only when both hold: the queue has produced no revisions for three consecutive campaigns, and a wrong post is recoverable by deleting it. Autonomy should remove repeated decisions, not remove taste.
Step 6 — Make performance rewrite the playbooks
Reporting numbers is not learning. After each campaign log the signal, angle, entryway, surface, reach, meaningful engagement, and the goal-linked action. Then have the editor return three lists:
| List | Bar to qualify |
|---|---|
| Keep | held across two or more campaigns and still matches strategy |
| Test | one promising result — a hypothesis, run it again |
| Stop | failed twice, duplicated another asset, or cost more than it returned |
Every proposal names the campaigns supporting it. One strong result is a Test, never a Keep. The human approves before any rule changes. Without this arrow, every campaign starts from the same generic prompt forever.
Log by entryway, not only by surface — over a few campaigns that reveals which door the audience actually walks through, which is more useful than which platform performed.
Running it on the host you have
Six roles is the model, not a hosting requirement.
| Host | Roles map to | What breaks |
|---|---|---|
| One session | one pass per role, record reread between | role bleed — it edits its own draft |
| Subagents | one per role, dispatched in stage order | cost, if each drags full context |
| Separate profiles | one per role, isolated memory | drift, if they coordinate by chat |
| One person | one sitting per role, in order | nothing; this is the honest first week |
Two rules survive every host. Conversation coordinates; files carry state. And isolate role memory where the host allows it — one shared memory turns six specialists back into one generalist that has read everything and distinguishes nothing.
Start smaller than six roles
Stand up scout, researcher, and editor first, and run three real ideas through them. Add the strategist once two of three evidence packets need no rework, the writer once the briefs constrain a draft without further questions, and distribution once one flagship has shipped and been measured.
The first useful version returns one researched opportunity, one angle brief, and one approval-ready post with a source attached. That is already more than most content operations produce.
Anti-patterns
- One shared memory for all six roles — specialists collapse into one generalist with opinions about everything.
- Prose handoffs — the next role guesses which sentences were load-bearing.
- Roles that fill each other's gaps — confident output, no traceable source.
- Splitting the draft instead of the argument — produces length variants.
- One hook rewritten seven ways — the claim underneath is identical, so the reader sees the repeat even when the wording differs.
- Adding the writer first — the most visible role, and the one that produces least value without an evidence packet in front of it.
- A performance log nobody converts to rules — analytics theatre.
Banned vocabulary
Avoid "fully autonomous media company", "content on autopilot", "replaces a marketing team", "repurpose", "atomize", and "one piece into fifty posts". The first three hide the approval steps; the last three describe reformatting, and naming the work that way produces the work. Say which argument each asset makes.
Boundaries
- Do not publish, schedule, or send anything. The pipeline prepares packages; the human releases them.
- Do not record a claim without the source that supports it, and do not upgrade an inference to a verified claim at any stage.
- Do not introduce a claim, number, or quote during distribution that the evidence packet does not carry.
- Do not invent a proof object, result, or failure mode to fill an entryway the source does not support. Report the entryway as unavailable.
- Do not present an unscored asset set as ready, and do not resolve a collision by rewording rather than reassigning.
- Do not report a stage complete without the record fields that stage owns being filled, and do not fabricate reach or engagement. An unmeasured campaign is logged as unmeasured.
Routing
- Which topics, pillars, or clusters the pipeline should work on -> use
suede-content-strategy. That skill decides what it operates on; this one decides how it moves. - Platform mix, cadence, calendars, listening, and pulling atoms out of long-form
-> use
suede-social. Instagram-specific programs -> usesuede-instagram-growth. - Cadence, state, idempotency, and stop conditions for a scheduled stage -> use
suede-marketing-loops. - Writing the flagship for a high-stakes public surface -> use
suede-ship-copy. A single shorter surface -> usesuede-copy. - A video moment bridged to one long-form guide -> use
suede-clip-to-guide. - Stripping AI writing patterns from the drafted assets -> use
suede-deslop. - Measurement plumbing behind the performance log -> use
suede-analytics. - Paid variants of these angles -> use
suede-ad-creative. - Agents editing code in parallel with file ownership and rollback -> use
suede-agent-teams. This skill covers editorial lanes, not repository lanes. - From
suede-content-strategyandsuede-social: route role contracts, the handoff record, and entryway assignment back here.
GitHub 仓库
常见问题
什么是 suede-newsroom Skill?
suede-newsroom 是一个 Claude Skill,作者为 JasonColapietro。Skill 将 Claude 按需加载的说明和资源打包,让 Claude 无需额外提示即可执行与 suede-newsroom 相关的任务。
如何安装 suede-newsroom?
使用本页的安装命令:将 suede-newsroom 作为插件添加到 Claude Code,或将其仓库克隆到 skills 目录,然后重启 Claude 以加载该 Skill。
suede-newsroom 属于哪个分类?
suede-newsroom 属于元分类。
suede-newsroom 可以免费使用吗?
可以。suede-newsroom 已收录在 AIMCP,可免费安装。
相关推荐技能
Content Collections 是一个 TypeScript 优先的构建工具,可将本地 Markdown/MDX 文件转换为类型安全的数据集合。它专为构建博客、文档站和内容密集型 Vite+React 应用而设计,提供基于 Zod 的自动模式验证。该工具涵盖从 Vite 插件配置、MDX 编译到生产环境部署的完整工作流。
这个Claude Skill为开发者提供完整的Polymarket预测市场开发支持,涵盖API调用、交易执行和市场数据分析。关键特性包括实时WebSocket数据流,可监控实时交易、订单和市场动态。开发者可用它构建预测市场应用、实施交易策略并集成实时市场预测功能。
该Skill帮助开发者创建OpenCode插件,用于接入命令、文件、LSP等25+种事件。它提供了插件结构、事件API规范和JavaScript/TypeScript实现模式,适合需要拦截操作、扩展功能或自定义事件处理的场景。开发者可通过它快速构建响应式模块来增强OpenCode AI助手的能力。
SGLang是一个专为LLM设计的高性能推理框架,特别适用于需要结构化输出的场景。它通过RadixAttention前缀缓存技术,在处理JSON、正则表达式、工具调用等具有重复前缀的复杂工作流时,能实现极速生成。如果你正在构建智能体或多轮对话系统,并追求远超vLLM的推理性能,SGLang是理想选择。
