A Claude Code skill that evaluates thought leadership content and returns a structured quality report: a weighted scorecard, evidence-backed dimension analysis, and a prioritised improvement plan.
Works on whitepapers, case studies, blog posts, articles, op-eds, and long-form reports.
Scores content across 8 dimensions on a 0–10 scale, produces a weighted overall score out of 100, surfaces specific weaknesses with verbatim quotes from the text, and delivers ranked, actionable recommendations.
| Dimension | Weight | What It Measures |
|---|---|---|
| Clarity | 15% | Is the writing easy to follow? Are sentences crisp? |
| Credibility | 15% | Are claims backed by data, citations, or named sources? |
| Originality | 12% | Fresh angle, proprietary insight, or contrarian take? |
| Structure | 12% | Logical flow, effective headings, good pacing? |
| Audience Alignment | 15% | Right tone, vocabulary, and framing for the intended reader? |
| Executive Value | 13% | Would a busy senior leader find this worth their time? |
| Evidence Quality | 10% | How strong and specific is the supporting evidence? |
| CTA Effectiveness | 8% | Clear, motivated next step that feels earned? |
Grades: A (85–100) · B (70–84) · C (55–69) · D (40–54) · F (<40)
npx skills add ryvrimmersive/content-eval -gOr install from the Skills registry:
npx skills find content-evalOnce installed, invoke it inside Claude Code:
/content-eval <paste text | file path | URL>
Examples:
# Score a pasted article
/content-eval [paste your article here]
# Score a local file
/content-eval /path/to/whitepaper.pdf
# Score a live URL
/content-eval https://yourcompany.com/blog/post-title
Accepts .txt, .md, .pdf, .docx, and any fetchable URL.
#### Scorecard
| Dimension | Score /10 | Weight | Weighted |
|--------------------|-----------|--------|----------|
| Clarity | 8 | 15% | 1.20 |
| Credibility | 8 | 15% | 1.20 |
| Originality | 9 | 12% | 1.08 |
| Structure | 7 | 12% | 0.84 |
| Audience Alignment | 9 | 15% | 1.35 |
| Executive Value | 8 | 13% | 1.04 |
| Evidence Quality | 7 | 10% | 0.70 |
| CTA Effectiveness | 3 | 8% | 0.24 |
| **OVERALL** | — | 100% | **77/100** |
**Grade:** B
**One-line verdict:** Sharp contrarian argument and strong audience calibration —
held back by an absent CTA and a slightly under-resolved structure.
Followed by:
- Dimension-by-dimension analysis with verbatim quotes as evidence
- 4–7 priority-ordered recommendations with specific rewrites
- Quick wins (word/sentence-level fixes)
The skill applies different emphasis depending on content type:
- Whitepaper — Credibility and Evidence Quality weighted higher in commentary
- Case Study — Audience Alignment and Evidence Quality lead; specificity of metrics matters most
- Blog Post — Clarity and Originality lead; CTA should feel natural
- Op-Ed / POV — Originality and Credibility dominate; author voice must be unmistakable
- Article (journalism) — Structure and Evidence Quality are paramount
- A 10 is rare — anchored to Fortune 500 CMO whitepapers and major analyst reports
- A 7 means genuinely good
- A 5 means mediocre but functional
- A 3 means significant problems
- A 1 means nearly absent
Scores are intentionally honest. The tool is designed to surface real gaps, not to validate.
content-eval/
├── SKILL.md # Skill definition and scoring rubrics
├── references/
│ └── scoring-examples.md # Annotated calibration examples per dimension
└── evals/
└── evals.json # 3 test cases (weak blog, strong case study, CEO op-ed)
Three test cases are included to verify skill performance:
| ID | Content | Expected Score Range |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | Generic AI blog post (weak) | < 65 |
| 1 | Fintech case study with metrics (strong) | 75–90 |
| 2 | CEO LinkedIn op-ed with Edelman data (strong) | 75–88 |
Run evals with:
npx skills eval content-evalBuilt by RYVR Immersive. Feedback and PRs welcome.