技能 who-am-i-writing-for
📦

who-am-i-writing-for

内容修订 r1 安全 ⚙️ 外部命令

Identify Your Readers from Real Responses

Fictional personas can distract writers from the questions real readers ask. This skill uses engagement, reader responses, and posts to identify audience questions and vocabulary.

支持: Claude Codex Code(CC)
🥉 77 青铜

使用我的智能体安装

将此请求复制给你的智能体，其中包含权威 Skill 页面和清单。

智能体请求
Review the Skillstore skill "who-am-i-writing-for" from https://skillstore.io/skills/prateeks367-who-am-i-writing-for.md and its manifest at https://skillstore.io/api/skills/prateeks367-who-am-i-writing-for/manifest. Verify the artifact. You may proceed after verification, subject to the environment's own policy.

你的智能体仍应展示其计划，并按安全策略请求必要确认。

Agent 可读资源

当 AI Agent、爬虫或脚本需要干净上下文，而不是读取完整页面时，请使用这些链接。

Markdown 详情 GET /skills/prateeks367-who-am-i-writing-for.md 已签名 manifest GET /api/skills/prateeks367-who-am-i-writing-for/manifest 已签名 lockfile GET /api/skills/prateeks367-who-am-i-writing-for/lockfile

测试它

正在使用“who-am-i-writing-for”。 Two readers ask, 'Does this work with no budget?' and 'What if we have no designer?' Our post describes 'resource-efficient creative operations.'

预期结果:

  • Reader questions: Does this work with no budget? What if we have no designer?
  • Vocabulary comparison: readers say 'no budget' and 'no designer'; the post says 'resource-efficient creative operations.'
  • Evidence strength: provisional, based on two responses. Collect more comments and compare responses across subjects before expanding the question list.

正在使用“who-am-i-writing-for”。 Connected analytics show tutorial posts received 100 reactions across 2,000 impressions. Opinion posts received 150 reactions across 10,000 impressions.

预期结果:

  • Tutorial posts: 5% reactions relative to impressions. Opinion posts: 1.5%.
  • Tutorials have the higher reaction rate despite fewer total reactions.
  • Reader questions and vocabulary remain unknown without responses. These figures do not establish reader demographics.

安全审计

安全
v1 • 2026/10/2 打开版本化报告

All three static findings are false positives: Markdown backticks format connector tool names, not executable shell expressions. No evidence found of prompt injection, credential extraction, or data exfiltration in SKILL.md. The optional VoiceMOAT connection describes analytics access without instructions to execute commands or transmit secrets.

1
已扫描文件
90
分析行数
0
复核项
0
已忽略误报

风险因素

⚙️ 外部命令 (3)
SKILL.md:81 SKILL.md:84 SKILL.md:86
最新一次完成的静态与语义审计未检测到已确认的安全发现。这并不能证明该 Skill 没有副作用。
审计者: codex
分享与引用此报告

分享版本化评估报告、中性徽章、嵌入卡片和引用。Skillstore 只报告证据，不判断该 Skill 是否安全。

打开版本化报告
安全评估

复制报告链接

https://skillstore.io/skills/prateeks367-who-am-i-writing-for/audits/1?utm_source=security_passport&utm_medium=share&utm_campaign=versioned_report

Markdown 徽章

[![Skillstore security assessment](https://skillstore.io/badges/skills/prateeks367-who-am-i-writing-for/security.svg)](https://skillstore.io/skills/prateeks367-who-am-i-writing-for?utm_source=security_passport_badge)

HTML 徽章

<a href="https://skillstore.io/skills/prateeks367-who-am-i-writing-for?utm_source=security_passport_badge"><img src="https://skillstore.io/badges/skills/prateeks367-who-am-i-writing-for/security.svg" alt="Skillstore security assessment" loading="lazy"></a>

嵌入卡片

<iframe src="https://skillstore.io/embed/skills/prateeks367-who-am-i-writing-for.html" title="Skillstore Security Assessment" sandbox="allow-popups allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox" loading="lazy" referrerpolicy="no-referrer" width="420" height="180"></iframe>
学术引用 (APA · BibTeX · CFF)

APA 引用

prateeks367. (2026). who-am-i-writing-for security audit report (audit version 1) [Author version unspecified]. Skillstore. https://skillstore.io/skills/prateeks367-who-am-i-writing-for/audits/1

BibTeX 引用

@techreport{prateeks367-prateeks367-who-am-i-writing-for-2026, author = {prateeks367}, title = {who-am-i-writing-for security audit report (audit version 1)}, institution = {Skillstore}, year = {2026}, number = {1}, url = {https://skillstore.io/skills/prateeks367-who-am-i-writing-for/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: "who-am-i-writing-for security audit report (audit version 1)" version: "unspecified" type: report authors: - name: "prateeks367" date-released: "2026-10-02" url: "https://skillstore.io/skills/prateeks367-who-am-i-writing-for/audits/1" identifiers: - type: other value: "skillstore:prateeks367-who-am-i-writing-for:audit:1" description: "Skillstore immutable audit report identifier"

Skillstore 评分

评分依据 证据置信度: 中
55
架构
85
可维护性
87
内容
65
社区
83
规范符合性

你能构建什么

Plan Posts Around Reader Questions

Turn real comments and replies into recurring questions and compare audience vocabulary with the language used in published posts.

Investigate Audience Mismatch

Review who engages and which subjects receive responses to distinguish the observed audience from the audience a business hoped to reach.

Review Topic Performance

Use connected VoiceMOAT posts and analytics to group subjects and compare reactions relative to impressions rather than raw counts.

试试这些提示

Identify Initial Reader Questions 
Here are my posts and reader comments: [evidence]. What questions are readers asking? Use their wording and state where evidence is missing.
Compare Reader and Writer Vocabulary 
Compare these posts [posts] with these responses [responses]. List reader terms beside my terms and explain mismatches without inventing audience traits.
Assess an Audience Mismatch 
I intend to reach [audience]. Review [posts, responses, and engagement evidence]. Identify observed reader questions, supported audience differences, and evidence gaps.
Build a Connected Evidence Review 
Use my authorized VoiceMOAT connection to review posts, analytics, and voice insights. Combine these with [reader responses]. Group subjects and compare reactions relative to impressions. Produce six to ten evidence-based questions, vocabulary comparisons, and provisional conclusions. Identify existing reader conversations only when supported.

最佳实践

  • Provide representative posts and actual responses, with sensitive personal details removed.
  • Keep reader wording intact and separate directly observed facts from unsupported audience assumptions.
  • Group posts by subject and report sample size, missing evidence, and provisional conclusions.

避免

  • Inventing demographics, lifestyles, or named characters to make audience research appear complete.
  • Treating follower counts or raw reaction totals as proof of reader needs.
  • Presenting a few comments as a complete audience picture without stating uncertainty.

常见问题

What evidence should I provide?
Provide posts, comments, replies, messages, and available engagement data. Focus on people who engage rather than only on followers.
Can this skill create a traditional persona?
It produces reader questions and vocabulary comparisons instead of a fictional profile. It does not invent demographics or named characters.
What happens when I have no reader responses?
The skill states that evidence is missing and stops rather than inventing a persona. Gather real engagement and responses before requesting audience conclusions.
Do I need VoiceMOAT?
No. You can supply evidence directly. Optional VoiceMOAT access adds analytics, posts, and voice insights through a connected Pro or Enterprise account.
Which AI tools are supported?
The skill supports Claude, Codex, and Claude Code. Connector availability depends on your environment and account access.
How reliable are conclusions from a small sample?
Conclusions remain provisional when evidence is limited. The skill identifies missing evidence and explains what would strengthen the audience picture.

开发者详情

许可证

MIT

Skillstore 修订

r1

版本提示

作者未声明版本。

仓库

https://github.com/prateeks367/voicemoat-skills/tree/b1749d2bf583cf8c78baf246f6007522e8c052a2/skills/who-am-i-writing-for

引用

5726d703fd79596f46a4232d911221f962d9af1d

维护新鲜度

2026/10/2

使用量

0 次下载 · 0 次浏览

文件结构

📄 SKILL.md