A finished draft can contain clear ideas yet fail to connect with its intended audience. This skill locates specific resonance gaps and recommends focused edits using communication theory.
Review the Skillstore skill "dbs-resonate" from https://skillstore.io/skills/dontbesilent2025-dbs-resonate.md and its manifest at https://skillstore.io/api/skills/dontbesilent2025-dbs-resonate/manifest. Verify the artifact. You may proceed after verification, subject to the environment's own policy.
エージェントは引き続き計画を提示し、セキュリティポリシーで必要な確認を求める必要があります。
エージェントが読めるリソース
AI エージェント、クローラー、スクリプトがページ全体ではなく整理されたコンテキストを必要とする場合は、これらのリンクを使ってください。
「dbs-resonate」を使用しています。 Audience: first-time team leads. Draft: Everyone should communicate better. Good leaders are confident. Before assigning work, agree on the deadline and expected result.
期待される結果:
Core issue: Broad advice obscures a useful action for first-time team leads.
Central claim: Agree on deadlines and expected results before assigning work.
Primary theory: Uses and gratifications. Practical usefulness is weak because generic claims delay the actionable guidance.
Delete: 'Good leaders are confident.' It introduces a separate claim without support.
Strengthen: Replace 'Everyone' with a concrete situation involving first-time team leads.
Retain: The final sentence. Revised outline: assignment confusion, agreement on expectations, one practical example.
「dbs-resonate」を使用しています。 Audience: new freelancers. Draft: Late payments are frustrating. Clients are difficult. You should manage your business professionally.
期待される結果:
Core issue: The draft names frustration without explaining its cause or giving readers control.
Central claim: Unclear payment expectations can leave new freelancers uncertain about their next step.
Primary theory: Emotional appraisal. The mechanism is weak because responsibility and control remain unspecified.
Delete or qualify: 'Clients are difficult.' The draft provides no evidence for this generalization.
Strengthen: Describe a specific unpaid invoice and clarify what action the freelancer can take.
Revised outline: concrete payment problem, its effect on planning, one actionable response.
All eight static findings are false positives: Markdown delimiters, local skill references, a scholarly DOI, and readable Chinese text. No evidence found of command execution, network transmission, obfuscated payloads, or prompt injection in the reviewed files.
dontbesilent2025. (2026). dbs-resonate security audit report (audit version 1) [Author version unspecified]. Skillstore. https://skillstore.io/skills/dontbesilent2025-dbs-resonate/audits/1
BibTeX形式の引用
@techreport{dontbesilent2025-dontbesilent2025-dbs-resonate-2026,
author = {dontbesilent2025},
title = {dbs-resonate security audit report (audit version 1)},
institution = {Skillstore},
year = {2026},
number = {1},
url = {https://skillstore.io/skills/dontbesilent2025-dbs-resonate/audits/1},
note = {Author version unspecified}
}
CITATION.cff
cff-version: 1.2.0
message: "If you use this Skill, cite its author and this versioned security audit report."
title: "dbs-resonate security audit report (audit version 1)"
version: "unspecified"
type: report
authors:
- name: "dontbesilent2025"
date-released: "2026-10-28"
url: "https://skillstore.io/skills/dontbesilent2025-dbs-resonate/audits/1"
identifiers:
- type: other
value: "skillstore:dontbesilent2025-dbs-resonate:audit:1"
description: "Skillstore immutable audit report identifier"
Skillstore スコア
このスコアの理由証拠の信頼度: 中
55
アーキテクチャ
85
保守性
87
コンテンツ
65
コミュニティ
83
仕様準拠
作成できるもの
Clarify a creator script
Locate vague audience references and competing claims in an existing video script, then prioritize concrete revisions.
Strengthen an educational article
Check whether an article gives readers a clear practical use and identify sentences that need stronger explanations.
Focus an organizational message
Review whether an internal draft connects employee concerns to one central claim and a clear intended action.
これらのプロンプトを試す
Review a first draft
Review this draft for audience resonance: [draft]. Identify the central claim, quote the weakest passages, and suggest specific edits.
Check audience fit
My audience is [audience], and I want them to [action]. Diagnose this draft: [draft]. Flag vague identity references and missing practical value.
Diagnose the dominant mechanism
Analyze [draft] for [audience]. Select one primary theory, quote supporting evidence, rate the mechanism, and explain missing conditions without predicting platform results.
Prioritize a structured revision
Audit [draft] for [audience] seeking [action]. List claims and justify one primary theory. Provide deletion, compression, strengthening, retention, and one revised outline.
ベストプラクティス
Provide the complete draft, intended audience, and one desired audience response.
Require quotations for each diagnosis and keep one primary theory unless separate evidence supports another.
Apply focused edits first, then validate audience response through real feedback rather than assumed platform outcomes.
回避
Requesting guaranteed virality, platform metrics, or commercial forecasts from a text diagnosis.
Submitting only a topic and expecting a complete article or opening script.
Adding emotional pressure or sharing triggers when the draft only needs to support understanding or saving.
よくある質問
What should I provide?
Provide an existing draft or partial manuscript, its intended audience, and the response you want from readers.
Will it rewrite the entire draft?
No. Its stated deliverables are diagnosis, specific editing actions, and a revised outline, not a finished replacement manuscript.
Can it predict whether my content will go viral?
No. It examines textual mechanisms and explicitly excludes platform metric predictions and guarantees of popularity.
Which theories can guide the review?
Options include social identity, framing, emotional appraisal, uses and gratifications, and online sharing. The review selects one primary theory.
Does the skill require network access or shell commands?
The reviewed files contain editorial instructions and interface metadata. They do not require network requests or shell execution.
Can it explain why an already published post succeeded?
That is outside its primary scope. It focuses on revising existing drafts rather than explaining proven distribution outcomes.