From cc-skills
Writes technical articles and blog posts for developer audiences via a phased workflow: idea sharpening, hooks/titles, structure, drafting, and editing. Triggers on 'write about [topic]' or similar requests.
npx claudepluginhub samber/cc --plugin cc-skillsThis skill is limited to using the following tools:
Write technical articles that developers actually want to read. This skill combines structural frameworks from technical writing, hook engineering from copywriting, and practitioner-tested patterns for developer content.
Creates isolated Git worktrees for feature branches with prioritized directory selection, gitignore safety checks, auto project setup for Node/Python/Rust/Go, and baseline verification.
Executes implementation plans in current session by dispatching fresh subagents per independent task, with two-stage reviews: spec compliance then code quality.
Dispatches parallel agents to independently tackle 2+ tasks like separate test failures or subsystems without shared state or dependencies.
Write technical articles that developers actually want to read. This skill combines structural frameworks from technical writing, hook engineering from copywriting, and practitioner-tested patterns for developer content.
Most technical articles fail because of structural problems, not bad ideas: burying the lede, mixing content types, weak openings, no clear motivation, or trying to cover too much.
Developer audiences have a built-in BS detector. The best technical content leads with specificity and honesty. It sounds like a smart colleague explaining something interesting, not a marketer pitching. Acknowledge your expertise level, solve a specific problem, use real examples.
Follow these phases in order. Each phase produces a concrete artifact the user reviews before moving on. Phase 1 is mandatory — always ask the user the intake questions and wait for answers before writing anything. If the user already provided some context, extract what you can and ask only about missing pieces.
Stop and ask. Before writing anything, present the intake questions below to the user and wait for their answers. Do not skip this phase, do not infer silently, and do not start drafting until you have explicit answers or confirmation on every item. Ask the user (or extract from context and confirm):
references/article-structures.md for full templates)
If the user already provided most of this, extract from conversation and confirm. But if critical pieces are missing, stop and ask before proceeding. Don't guess at the audience, content type, or thesis. A wrong assumption here wastes an entire draft.
Specifically:
Only proceed to Phase 2 once you have enough clarity on topic, audience, content type, and thesis to write a coherent outline. It's cheaper to ask one question now than to rewrite 2000 words later.
Idea quality filters. Apply these before investing in a draft:
Julia Evans's heuristic: the best technical content comes from what you struggled with, not what you mastered. If the topic feels too "textbook", push toward the specific struggle, surprise, or counterintuitive finding.
Julian Shapiro's novelty filter. The idea should fit at least one:
If the idea doesn't pass any filter, say so. Help the user find the angle that does.
Generate 10 title variants using different hook strategies. Read references/hooks-and-titles.md for the full framework of 10 hook types and headline formulas.
Constraints for developer audiences:
Present 10 titles ranked by assessment, with a brief note on why each works. Let the user pick or remix.
Write the opening 2-4 paragraphs. Read references/hooks-and-titles.md for the ten hook types.
The intro must accomplish three things:
Address three reader objections:
Anti-patterns to avoid:
Choose structure based on content type. Read references/article-structures.md for detailed templates per content type.
General structural principles:
For code-heavy articles:
For opinion/analysis:
Write the complete article. Interleave hook, body sections, and conclusion.
For the conclusion, avoid restating the article. Instead pick one of:
Invoke a humanizer skill (e.g. "humanize", "humanizer", "de-slop", "natural writing check", "AI detection cleanup", "rewrite like a human") to strip AI-generated patterns — filler words, predictable cadence, over-hedging, hollow transitions, inflated language. Developer audiences have a built-in BS detector; AI-sounding prose kills trust before the reader reaches the technical content.
Preserve the hook and title. The opening hook (Phase 3) and title (Phase 2) were deliberately engineered for curiosity and credibility. Instruct the humanizer to leave them intact — rewriting them for "naturalness" destroys the copywriting structure that earns the click and the first scroll.
After the draft is complete, suggest 1-3 images with specific placement in the article. For each image, provide:
Offer to generate a Midjourney prompt for each suggested image. If the user accepts, use the latest Midjourney model conventions to write the prompt. Use --ar 16:9 or --ar 3:1 for hero/cover images and wide illustrations (optimal for article headers), --ar 3:2 for smaller inline images. Refer to up-to-date Midjourney documentation for current prompt syntax and parameters.
Revisit titles from Phase 2. Now that the full piece exists, some titles fit better. Present top 3 with a recommendation.
Present the article in clean markdown with:
Read these when the corresponding phase needs more depth:
references/hooks-and-titles.md -- The 10 hook types, 6 copywriting frameworks (PAS, AIDA, BAB, FAB, PASTOR, 4Us), headline formulas, and research data. Read during Phase 2 and Phase 3.references/article-structures.md -- Detailed templates for each of the 8 content types, Diataxis framework, structural anti-patterns, and transition techniques. Read during Phase 4.