Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

blog-writing(博客写作)

用于辅助文档、README、Markdown、说明文和内容稿件的整理与改写。它适合让 Agent 提炼结构、补齐章节、统一术语、检查链接或把零散材料整理成可读文档。使用时应保留项目已有事实、命令和路径,不要把未确认的信息写成确定结论;涉及对外文案时,还需要控制语气,避免过度营销或夸大能力。

blog-writing 是研究检索类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 OpenClaw,通过ClawHub获取,权限为执行命令;许可证为 MIT-0,第三方扫描有提醒项,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,674 个 Skill 里排第 26,368。

总安装 3,584周安装 145GitHub Stars 公开资料未说明下载 1,125核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
MIT-0
版本
2.3.0

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:blog-writing(博客写作)
来源仓库:https://github.com/justinbao19/blog-writing
安装命令:
openclaw skills install blog-writing
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 OpenClaw 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

ClawHubOpenClaw
openclaw skills install blog-writing

这个 Skill 是做什么的

研究检索类 Skill 主要解决「找资料、核对事实、把来源整理清楚」的问题,通常会让助手先检索再总结。

用于辅助文档、README 和内容稿件的整理与改写,适合提炼结构和统一术语。提供分步 SEO 博客写作工作流程,涵盖关键词策略和竞争研究。通过 clawhub 安装,结合来源仓库和 README 核验具体用法。使用时应保留项目事实,避免将未确认信息写成确定结论;涉及对外文案时需控制语气。

使用时需参考原始 SKILL.md 了解详细功能与限制条件。

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 OpenClaw;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 openclaw skills install blog-writing;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它需要执行命令,先在测试目录或测试账号里跑,确认没问题再放到正式项目。

常见问题

6 条

blog-writing 怎么安装?

在终端执行 openclaw skills install blog-writing。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

blog-writing 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 OpenClaw。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

blog-writing 需要什么权限?

权限级别是执行命令。安装流程涉及命令执行,可能通过 openclaw skills install blog-writing 联网下载 Skill 或依赖。用户安装前应确认命令来源、仓库内容和执行环境。

blog-writing 是免费的吗?

来源标注的许可证是 MIT-0。本站不代收任何费用,也不托管安装包;能否商用、要不要署名,以许可证原文为准。

blog-writing 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 3,584 次,近一周安装 145 次,下载 1,125 次。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

blog-writing 安全吗?

第三方扫描有提醒项,说明存在需要人工确认的行为。安装前请打开源码看清它读了什么、联网到哪里。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 专注 OpenClaw 一种宿主,触发方式和使用习惯不用来回切换。
  • 许可证明确为 MIT-0,商用和分发边界好判断。

先想清楚的地方

  • 需要执行命令,装到常用环境前要先评估影响面。
  • 第三方扫描存在提醒项或未通过项,需要人工逐条确认。
  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 OpenClaw,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理研究检索类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。

不太适合

  • 不能接受 Skill 在你机器上执行命令的人。
  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

研究检索类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
find-skills

寻找技能 · Codex、Claude

31,199,81316,486操作浏览器MIT有提醒
self-improving-agent

自我改进 Agent · OpenClaw

16,464,0023,396接触敏感数据MIT-0通过
soultrace

灵魂追踪 · Codex、Claude

7,588,94412需要联网未明确有提醒
self-improving

自我完善 · OpenClaw

6,829,2841,046需要联网MIT-0通过
microsoft-foundry

微软代工厂 · Codex、Claude

6,614,144764调用外部服务未明确有提醒
blog-writing

博客写作 · 本页

3,584—执行命令MIT-0有提醒

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

name
blog-writing
version
2.3.0
description
Step-by-step SEO blog writing workflow for teams who want full control over every phase. Covers keyword strategy, competitive research, content structure, internal linking, AI writing pattern avoidance, link verification, and QA. Each phase is explicit and reviewable — no black-box automation. Pairs with seo-geo-qa for automated QA in Phase 6.

SEO Blog Writing — Complete Workflow

When to Use

  • Writing any blog article (comparison, how-to, listicle, guide, thought piece)
  • Creating long-form SEO content (2000+ words)
  • Producing content for any website or blog

Execution Model (IMPORTANT)

This skill requires running shell commands (Phase 5 link verification, Phase 6 QA runner). It must be executed in a context with full exec permissions.

Always spawn the writing subagent with security: "full":

sessions_spawn(
  task: "[full article brief]",
  runtime: "subagent",
  security: "full"   ← REQUIRED — without this, exec approval gates block Phase 5 & 6
)

If running in main session directly (fallback only), exec permissions are already sufficient — proceed normally.

Never spawn without security: "full" — the subagent will silently skip QA and deliver an unverified draft.

Failure Recovery Guardrails (Mandatory)

  1. Section-by-section writes — Write each H2 section to disk incrementally. Never hold more than one section only in context.
  2. Inline AI-tell check — After each H2 section, run the 4-point check (see Phase 3) before moving on. Fix inline, don't batch.
  3. QA loop cap — Max 3 QA rounds. Each round fixes only concrete FAIL items from the latest report. Never regenerate passing sections.
  4. Timeout recovery — If interrupted mid-article, write partial output to disk immediately, note the resume section, and continue from there. Do not restart from zero.

Pre-Flight

  1. Read your product context file (e.g. product/context.md) for current product facts
  2. Read your brand guidelines (e.g. brand/voice.md) for voice and red lines
  3. Check your internal links map (e.g. blog/plan/internal-links-map.md) for internal linking targets
  4. Check your content plan (e.g. blog/plan/content-plan.md) for where this article fits in the topic cluster

Phase 1: Research (Before Writing)

Keyword Research

  1. Primary keyword — The exact phrase we want to rank for (e.g., "best AI email apps 2026")
  2. Secondary keywords — Related phrases to include naturally (3-5)
  3. Long-tail variants — Question-form queries for FAQ section

Competitive Analysis

For the primary keyword, search Google and analyze top 5 results:

  • Word count of each
  • H2/H3 structure
  • What they cover that we should cover
  • What they miss that we can fill (content gap)
  • External links they use (authority sources)

Run the QA runner to analyze SERP gaps during research:

python3 skills/seo-geo-qa/scripts/seo_qa_runner.py path/to/draft.md --keyword "best email apps for mac"

Use the lower-level analyzer only when debugging SERP gaps in isolation:

python3 skills/seo-geo-qa/scripts/serp_gap_analyzer.py "best email apps for mac" path/to/draft.md
python3 skills/seo-geo-qa/scripts/serp_gap_analyzer.py "best email apps for mac" path/to/draft.md --urls https://competitor1.com https://competitor2.com

Search Intent Classification

Intent TypeSignalArticle Approach
Informational"what is", "how to"Definitive guide, answer-first
Comparison"best", "vs", "alternatives"Structured comparison, table-heavy
Commercial"review", "pricing"Detailed evaluation, honest pros/cons
Navigationalbrand nameProduct-focused, feature deep-dive

Output: Research Brief

Save to your blog plan directory (e.g. blog/plan/) before writing:

## Research Brief: [Title]
- Primary keyword: 
- Secondary keywords: 
- Search intent: 
- Target word count: 
- Top 5 competitor URLs + word counts
- Content gaps to exploit
- Internal links to include
- External authority sources identified

Phase 2: Outline

Standard Article Structure

# H1 — Contains primary keyword, under 60 chars

Opening hook (150-200 words)
- Define the problem/question
- Why this matters now
- What this article covers

## Quick Comparison Table (for comparison articles)

## Detailed Reviews / Sections (bulk of article)
### H3 subsections as needed

## How We Tested / Methodology

## How to Choose / Decision Framework

## FAQ (4-6 questions, schema-markup ready)

## Further Reading (internal + external links)

Heading Rules

  • One H1 per article, contains primary keyword
  • H2s match search queries where possible
  • H3s for subsections within H2s
  • Never skip levels (H1 → H3 is wrong)
  • Headings describe content, not for styling

Phase 3: Write

Opening (First 100 Words — Critical)

  • Primary keyword appears in first 100 words
  • Direct answer or clear hook (no throat-clearing)
  • Set expectation for what reader will learn

Body Writing Standards

Word Count by Type:

TypeMinimumTarget
Comparison / Listicle2,5003,000-3,500
How-to Guide1,5002,000-2,500
Thought Piece1,0001,500-2,000
Product Comparison (vs)2,0002,500-3,000

Keyword Density:

  • Primary keyword: 1-2% (natural, never stuffed)
  • Secondary keywords: 0.5-1% each
  • Check: keyword should feel invisible to the reader

Paragraph Structure:

  • Max 3-4 sentences per paragraph
  • One idea per paragraph
  • Short sentences mixed with longer ones
  • Use bullet points and numbered lists for scanability

Readability Target:

  • Flesch Reading Ease: 60-70 (standard/conversational)
  • Grade level: 8-10 (accessible but not dumbed down)
  • Sentence length: average 15-20 words, max 35

Internal Linking Strategy

Word CountInternal Links MinTarget
< 150023-5
1500-250035-8
2500-350058-12
3500+710-15
  • Link with descriptive anchor text (not "click here")
  • Link to related blog posts in the same topic cluster
  • Link to product/feature pages where natural
  • Follow hub-spoke pattern (see internal-links-map)
  • Consult your internal links map (e.g. blog/plan/internal-links-map.md)

External Linking Standards (Proportional)

Content TypeExternal Links MinRationale
Comparison / Best-of (8+ products)16-24Each product: official site + 1 authority source
Comparison / Best-of (5-7 products)12-18Same ratio
Alternatives page10-15Each alternative + authority sources
How-to guide5-10Claims need sources, fewer entities
Thought piece3-8Fewer claims, more perspective

The principle: Every entity mentioned gets a link. Every factual claim gets a source. Don't link for the sake of linking.

  • Prefer: official sites > media reviews > research papers
  • Avoid: personal blogs, paywalled content, temporary pages
  • Never link to competitors' comparison articles (link to their product page)
  • All links must be verified (Phase 5)

Authority Signals (GEO/AEO Optimization)

These boost visibility in AI search engines (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews):

SignalImpactHow
Statistics with sources+37%"According to [Source], X% of users..."
Quotations (expert quotes)+30%"As [Name], [Title] at [Company], notes..."
Authoritative tone+25%Write with demonstrated expertise, not hedge language
Authoritative citations+40%Link to research, not just claims
Clear definitions+20%Definition in first paragraph of each section
FAQ with schema+30-40%Natural Q&A format at bottom
"Last updated" date+freshnessInclude at bottom of article

Evidence sandwich pattern — Structure every major claim as: Claim → Evidence → Interpretation

"Most users prefer [X] [claim]. A 2024 study of 1,000 professionals found Y [evidence]. This means Z for your specific workflow [interpretation]."

Stats without interpretation are noise. Interpretation without evidence is opinion. The sandwich does both and is the format AI systems are most likely to excerpt.

Content Extractability (for AI Citation)

AI systems extract passages, not pages. Each key point should work standalone:

  • Lead every section with a direct answer (don't bury it)
  • Keep key answer passages to 40-60 words
  • Tables beat prose for comparison content
  • Numbered lists beat paragraphs for process content
  • Self-contained answer blocks that work without surrounding context

Platform-Specific GEO

Different AI systems cite differently. Write each major section to satisfy all four:

PlatformWhat it prefersFormat to use
Google AI OverviewsDirect answers, tables, listsLead with 40-60 word direct answer. "X is [definition]. Key points: [numbered list]."
PerplexityEvidence with methodology, attributed data"Research shows [finding] (N=size, method, year)." Front-load sample size and date.
ChatGPTMultiple angles, acknowledged limitations"While X is generally true, Y also matters because..." Cover edge cases.
ClaudeLogical cause-and-effect chains"Because X happens, Y results, leading to Z." Structure reasoning, not just conclusions.

In practice: One well-structured section satisfies all four. Lead with direct answer (Google), follow with sourced evidence (Perplexity), add nuance (ChatGPT), ensure logical flow throughout (Claude).

Comparison Article Specifics

For "Best X" / "X Alternatives" / "X vs Y" articles:

  • Always include a comparison table at the top
  • Each entry needs: Name, Price, Key Feature, Platforms, Best For
  • Be honest about competitors — acknowledge strengths
  • Be honest about our weaknesses — builds trust, ranks better
  • Position your product first but earn it with real arguments
  • Include anchor IDs for each product section

Inline AI-Tell Check (Run After Each H2 — Not Batched)

After writing each H2 section, check these 4 things before moving to the next section. Fix inline. Do not save the check for Phase 4.

□ Banned words: delve, seamlessly, robust, leverage, revolutionize, holistic, tapestry,
                navigate (metaphor), harness, paradigm, synergy, game-changer, elevate
□ Long sentences: any sentence > 35 words? Split it.
□ Throat-clearing opener: section starts with "It's important to..." / "When it comes to..."?
  Cut it — start with the point.
□ Em-dash density: > 1 em-dash per 200 words? Rewrite as commas, semicolons, or split sentences.

If any box is checked: rewrite only the flagged sentence(s). Then move on. This takes under 30 seconds per section and catches problems at the source rather than in a painful batch rewrite at the end.


Phase 4: Optimize

SEO Checklist (Before Review)

  • [ ] H1 contains primary keyword, under 60 chars
  • [ ] Meta description drafted: 150-160 chars, includes keyword
  • [ ] Primary keyword in first 100 words
  • [ ] Primary keyword in at least one H2
  • [ ] URL slug is keyword-rich and clean
  • [ ] At least one table or list (featured snippet opportunity)
  • [ ] FAQ section present (schema markup ready)
  • [ ] "Last updated: [Month Year]" at bottom
  • [ ] Internal links ≥ 3
  • [ ] External links ≥ 10
  • [ ] All images have alt text (when applicable)

AI Writing Pattern Avoidance

CRITICAL: Content must not read like AI wrote it.

Common AI patterns to eliminate:

PatternExampleFix
Em-dash overuse"The tool — which is powerful — works well"Use commas or periods instead. Max 3 em-dashes per article.
"Delve into""Let's delve into the features""Here's what it does" / "Let's look at"
"Landscape""In today's email landscape"Cut it. Be specific.
"Leverage""Leverage AI to improve""Use AI to improve"
"Tapestry/Mosaic""A rich tapestry of features"Just describe the features.
"Revolutionize""Revolutionizing how you email""Changes how you email"
"Game-changer""This is a game-changer"Say what it actually changes.
"Seamlessly""Seamlessly integrates""Integrates" or "works with"
"Robust""A robust set of features""A full set of features" or just list them.
"Elevate""Elevate your inbox experience""Improve" or describe the specific improvement.
"Navigate" (metaphor)"Navigate your inbox challenges""Deal with" / "Handle" / "Manage"
"Harness""Harness the power of AI""Use AI to..."
"Paradigm""A paradigm shift"Describe the actual change.
"Synergy""Create synergy between...""Works well with" or describe specifically.
"Holistic""A holistic approach""A complete approach" or be specific.
"At the end of the day"FillerCut it.
"Without further ado""Without further ado, here's..."Just start.
Triple-adjective stacking"Powerful, intuitive, and elegant"Pick one. Prove it.
Rhetorical questions"But what if there was a better way?"State the better way.
"In conclusion" / "In summary""In conclusion, [Product] is the best"Just make your point.

Self-check: Read the article out loud. If any sentence sounds like a press release, rewrite it.


Phase 5: Link Verification (MANDATORY)

Never deliver content without verifying every link.

Process

  1. Extract all URLs from the article
  2. Test each with web_fetch or curl -sI
  3. Check for: 404, 403, redirects to wrong content, paywalls
  4. For non-obvious external sources, run a source-quality spot check (AITDK/Ahrefs/search evidence)

Source Quality Spot Check

For external sources that are not obviously authoritative, check whether they are worth citing:

  • AITDK traffic page: https://aitdk.com/traffic/<domain> for traffic / keyword / domain-age hints when accessible
  • Ahrefs Backlink Checker: use as a quick proxy for domain strength / backlink profile
  • Search evidence: site:domain.com, branded query, and recent indexed pages if third-party tools are blocked

Do not require perfect metrics. The goal is to catch weak, stale, spammy, or irrelevant sources before they land in the article.

When Links Fail

  • Search for alternative source supporting the same claim
  • Prioritize: Official sites > Research > Major publications
  • Update surrounding text if needed
  • Document changes:
**Original:** https://broken-link.com (404)
**Replacement:** https://working-link.com
**Reason:** Original returned 404
**Verified:** ✅ Same data confirmed

Quote & Attribution Verification (CRITICAL — learned the hard way)

  • If citing a review → verify the quote exists AND the article's overall tone matches your framing
  • Tone match test: Read the first 3 paragraphs of the source article. Is it positive, negative, or neutral?

- Source is positive → quote freely - Source is negative → either don't quote, or frame honestly: "Even [Source]'s critical review acknowledged..." - Source is neutral → quote with accurate framing

  • Don't pull positive fragments from negative reviews — readers click through and lose trust
  • Statistics must match their cited source exactly (number, date, methodology)
  • "According to [Source]" → verify Source actually says that

Phase 6: Automated QA (MANDATORY — runs before human review)

After completing Phase 5, ALWAYS run the QA runner before spawning a review agent or delivering the draft. Do not skip this. Do not ask whether to run it.

python3 skills/seo-geo-qa/scripts/seo_qa_runner.py path/to/article.md --keyword "primary keyword"

What happens automatically

  1. All links verified (liveness + source quality tiering)
  2. Dead links, weak sources, moved links flagged
  3. FAQ count, external link count, SERP gap checked
  4. Markdown + JSON report saved to qa-reports/{slug}/ next to the article
  5. Verdict: PASS or FAIL

If FAIL

  • Fix critical issues (dead links, too many TIER-D sources)
  • Re-run until PASS
  • Max 3 rounds

If PASS

  • Proceed to Phase 7 (human review)
  • Include the QA report link in the review handoff

Phase 7: Review (Auto-Spawn)

Always spawn a review agent after Phase 6 passes. The review agent checks:

Review must check:

  • QA runner verdict is PASS (with report link)
  • SEO checklist complete
  • Brand voice compliance
  • Factual accuracy (pricing, features)
  • AI writing patterns eliminated
  • Readability standards met

File Conventions

Where to Save

  • Research briefs: blog/plan/brief-{slug}.md
  • Article drafts: blog/seo/{slug}.md (SEO) or blog/{slug}.md (general)
  • Article images: handled separately in your CMS or website repo

Slug Format

  • Lowercase, hyphen-separated
  • Match target URL path: /blog/{slug}

Title Year Rules (2026-03-24 决策)

文章类型标题带年份?原因
比较类 (best X, X alternatives)✅ 是年份是搜索关键词的一部分("best email app 2026")
教育型 / How-to❌ 否搜索意图是常青的,年份反而限制文章寿命
场景痛点❌ 否同上
功能发布❌ 否功能不按年份搜索
思想 / 署名文章❌ 否同上
  • 教育类文章的 freshness 信号放在文末 "Last updated: [Month Year]"
  • 比较类文章的年份每年 Q1 集中更新(标题 + 内容 + slug)
  • 参考:Anthropic claude.com/blog 零篇使用年份标题,全靠内容 freshness 信号

Related Skills

  • content-production — Mandatory produce → review → revise workflow
  • content-qa — QA checklist and review agent
  • seo-audit — Technical SEO checks for the whole site
  • seo-geo — GEO optimization for AI search engines
  • competitor-alternatives — Comparison page structure
  • schema-markup — JSON-LD implementation
  • copy-editing — Multi-pass editing framework

平台分布

OpenClaw

81.14%
按下载量换算913

安全审计

VirusTotal

可疑

ClawScan

可疑

Static analysis

通过

权限和风险

执行命令

安装流程涉及命令执行,可能通过 openclaw skills install blog-writing 联网下载 Skill 或依赖。用户安装前应确认命令来源、仓库内容和执行环境。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。来源安全扫描存在提醒或未通过项,安装前请自行复核。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills