Now liveThe Skillselion MCP - thousands of ranked skills, loaded into your agent mid-task. No install.Get it →
bighardperson avatar

Content Ops

  • 8 installs
  • 33 repo stars
  • Updated April 26, 2026
  • bighardperson/computer-science-skills-collection

content-ops is a skill that scores and iteratively improves content or strategy with an auto-assembled expert panel until every score reaches 90+.

About

content-ops is a skill that scores and iteratively improves content or strategy using an auto-assembled panel of 7-10 domain experts. It selects a scoring rubric by content type, runs a recursive scoring loop until every expert scores 90+ (max 3 rounds), and always includes an AI-writing detector and brand-voice check. A developer or marketer uses it as a quality gate on copy, landing pages, email sequences, titles or strategy docs.

  • Scores and iteratively improves content or strategy with an auto-assembled panel of 7-10 domain experts
  • Recursively loops until all scores hit 90+, max 3 rounds
  • Always includes an AI Writing Detector (1.5x weight) and Brand Voice Match expert

Content Ops by the numbers

  • 8 all-time installs (skills.sh)
  • Ranked #1,541 of 1,879 Marketing & SEO skills by installs in the Skillselion catalog
  • Data as of Jul 30, 2026 (Skillselion catalog sync)
At a glance

content-ops capabilities & compatibility

Capabilities
content scoring · copywriting · quality review
Use cases
copywriting · marketing · seo
Pricing
Free
From the docs

What content-ops says it does

Score, evaluate, and iteratively improve any content or strategy using an auto-assembled panel of domain experts.
SKILL.md
**Target: 90/100 across all experts. Non-negotiable. Max 3 rounds.**
SKILL.md
npx skills add https://github.com/bighardperson/computer-science-skills-collection --skill content-ops

Add your badge

Show developers this skill is listed on Skillselion. Paste this into your README.

Listed on Skillselion
Installs8
repo stars33
Last updatedApril 26, 2026
Repositorybighardperson/computer-science-skills-collection

What it does

Score and iteratively rewrite copy, landing pages, email sequences or strategy docs until an expert panel rates them 90+.

Who is it for?

quality-gating copy, landing pages, email sequences, titles and strategy docs

When should I use this skill?

asked to score, rate, quality-check or panel-review content, or another skill needs a quality gate on its output

What you get

Content revised through expert scoring rounds until it reaches a 90+ quality bar.

By the numbers

  • panel of 7-10 experts
  • iterates until 90+ score
  • max 3 rounds

Files

SKILL.mdMarkdownGitHub ↗

Preamble (runs on skill start)

# Version check (silent if up to date)
python3 telemetry/version_check.py 2>/dev/null || true

# Telemetry opt-in (first run only, then remembers your choice)
python3 telemetry/telemetry_init.py 2>/dev/null || true
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.

---

Expert Panel

General-purpose scoring and iterative improvement engine. Auto-assembles the right experts for whatever is being evaluated, scores it, and loops until 90+.

---

Step 1: Intake — Understand What's Being Scored

Collect or infer from context:

1. Content/artifact — The thing(s) to score (paste, file path, or URL) 2. Content type — Copy, sequence, landing page, strategy, title, chart, candidate eval, etc. 3. Offer context — What's being sold/promoted? To whom? What domain/industry? 4. Variants — Are there multiple versions to compare? (A/B/C) 5. Source skill — Is this output from another skill? (e.g., cold-outbound-optimizer) If yes, note the source for feedback-to-source routing in Step 6.

If context is obvious from the conversation, don't ask — just proceed.

---

Step 2: Auto-Assemble the Expert Panel

Build a panel of 7–10 experts tailored to the content type and domain.

Assembly rules

1. Start with content-type experts. Read experts/ directory for pre-built panels matching the content type. If an exact match exists (e.g., experts/linkedin.md for a LinkedIn post), use it as the base.

2. Add domain/offer experts. Based on the offer context, add 1–3 experts who understand the specific industry or domain. Examples:

  • Scoring bakery marketing → add Food & Beverage Marketing Expert
  • Scoring SaaS landing page → add SaaS Conversion Expert
  • Scoring recruiting outreach → add Agency Recruiter + Talent Market Expert
  • Scoring medical device copy → add Healthcare Compliance Expert

3. Always include these two:

  • AI Writing Detector — See experts/humanizer.md. Weight: 1.5x. Non-negotiable.
  • Brand Voice Match — Checks alignment with the configured brand voice and

known rejection patterns from references/patterns.md (if present).

4. Check learned patterns. If references/patterns.md exists, read it. If any patterns apply to this content type, brief the panel on them. Dock points for known-bad patterns.

5. Cap at 10 experts. If you have more than 10, merge overlapping roles.

Panel output format

List each expert with: Name, lens/focus, what they check.

---

Step 3: Select Scoring Rubric

Choose the appropriate rubric from scoring-rubrics/:

Content typeRubric file
Blog, social, email, newsletter, scriptsscoring-rubrics/content-quality.md
Strategy, recommendations, analysisscoring-rubrics/strategic-quality.md
Landing pages, ads, CTAsscoring-rubrics/conversion-quality.md
Charts, data viz, infographicsscoring-rubrics/visual-quality.md
Candidate evaluationsscoring-rubrics/evaluation-quality.md
OtherSynthesize a rubric from the two closest matches

Read the selected rubric file for detailed criteria and point allocation.

---

Step 4: Score — Recursive Loop Until 90+

Target: 90/100 across all experts. Non-negotiable. Max 3 rounds.

Each round produces:

## Round [N] — Score: [AVG]/100

| Expert | Score | Key Feedback |
|--------|-------|--------------|
| [Name] | [0-100] | [One-line rationale] |
| ... | ... | ... |

**Aggregate:** [weighted average — humanizer at 1.5x]
**Top 3 weaknesses:** [ranked]
**Changes made:** [specific edits addressing each weakness]

Then the revised content/artifact.

Rules

  • Scores must be brutally honest. No padding to 90.
  • Humanizer score weighted 1.5x in the aggregate.
  • If aggregate < 90: identify top 3 weaknesses → revise → next round.
  • If aggregate ≥ 90: finalize and proceed to output.
  • After 3 rounds, if still < 90: return best version with honest score + note on what's

holding it back.

  • Show ALL rounds in output — the iteration trail is part of the value.

Variant comparison mode

When scoring multiple variants (A/B/C):

  • Score each variant independently through the full panel.
  • After scoring, rank variants by aggregate score.
  • If top variant is < 90, iterate on the best one (don't iterate all of them).

---

Step 5: Output Format

Winner + Score (always at top)

## 🏆 Result: [SCORE]/100 — [PASS ✅ | NEEDS WORK ⚠️]

[Final content/artifact here]

**Iterations:** [N] rounds
**Panel:** [Expert names, comma-separated]

If variants: show winner first, then runner-up scores.

## 🏆 Winner: Variant [X] — [SCORE]/100

[Winning content]

### Runner-up scores
- Variant A: 87/100
- Variant B: 82/100
- Variant C: 91/100 ← Winner

Feedback History (below the result)

Show full scoring rounds.

---
<details>
<summary>📊 Scoring History (N rounds)</summary>

[All round tables from Step 4]

</details>

---

Step 6: Feedback-to-Source (When Scoring Another Skill's Output)

When the scored content came from another skill, generate a Source Improvement Brief:

## 🔁 Feedback for [Source Skill]

### What scored low
- [Pattern]: [Specific example from this content]

### Suggested skill improvements
- [Concrete change to the source skill's process/rubric/prompt]

### Patterns to add to source skill
- [Any recurring weakness that should become a rule]

This brief can be used to update the source skill's SKILL.md or rubrics.

---

Step 7: Memory — Learn from Approvals and Rejections

After the user approves or rejects panel output:

On approval (score ≥ 90, user accepts)

Note what worked. No action needed unless a new positive pattern emerges.

On rejection (user overrides the panel or rejects 90+ content)

1. Ask why (or infer from context). 2. Add a new pattern to references/patterns.md using this format:

## [Pattern Name]
- **Type:** rejection | preference | override
- **Content types:** [which types this applies to]
- **Rule:** [What to always/never do]
- **Example:** [The specific instance that triggered this]
- **Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
- **Point dock:** [-N points when detected]

3. Confirm: "Added pattern: [one-line summary]. Panel will dock [N] points for this going forward."

Pattern enforcement

Every scoring round, check references/patterns.md against the content. Apply point docks before expert scoring begins. This means known-bad patterns are penalized even if individual experts miss them.

---

Reference Files

FilePurposeWhen to read
experts/humanizer.mdAI writing detection rubric (24 patterns)Every scoring run
experts/[domain].mdPre-built expert panels for common domainsWhen domain matches
scoring-rubrics/content-quality.mdContent scoring rubricContent scoring
scoring-rubrics/strategic-quality.mdStrategy scoring rubricStrategy scoring
scoring-rubrics/conversion-quality.mdLanding page/ad/CTA rubricConversion scoring
scoring-rubrics/visual-quality.mdChart/data viz/infographic rubricVisual scoring
scoring-rubrics/evaluation-quality.mdCandidate/assessment rubricEval scoring
references/patterns.mdLearned rejection patternsEvery scoring run
references/expert-assembly.mdDomain-expert examples for auto-assemblyWhen building unfamiliar panels

Related skills

FAQ

What score does content-ops target?

It targets 90/100 across all experts, iterating up to 3 rounds.

How many experts are on the panel?

It auto-assembles a panel of 7-10 experts tailored to the content type and domain.

This week in AI coding

Five minutes, every Monday - the tools, releases and tactics for developers.

unsubscribe anytime.