Review tweet drafts in Claude Code against 8 voice rules. Scores 1-10, breaks down every rule, and rewrites anything that scores below 7.

Tweet Draft Reviewer Paste a tweet draft and get a score out of 10, a rule by rule breakdown, and a rewrite if the score is below 7. Takes 30 seconds. Saves you from posting something that sounds like a chatbot wrote it. Built on 8 voice rules distilled from real content analysis — what separates high engagement tweets from the ones that get skimmed. How to Use Single draft: Batch scan: Skill Instructions (for Claude Code) When this skill is invoked, follow these phases exactly. PHASE 1: INTAKE Determine input mode: Mode A — Direct paste: User provided draft text inline. Proceed to PHASE 2 with that text. Mode B — Folder scan: User asked to review drafts folder. Run: If no vault path was given and no content/tweet drafts/ exists in the current directory, ask: Mode C — Ambiguous: No draft provided and no folder context. Ask: PHASE 2: ANALYZE Apply all 8 rules to the draft. For each rule, record ✅ PASS or ❌ FAIL with a one line reason. The 8 Rules Rule 1: No "I" opener FAIL: First word is exactly I (standalone — not "In", "It", "If") PASS: Anything else Rule 2: Strong opener FAIL: First sentence ends with ? OR starts with "Have you", "Do you", "Are you", "What if", "What would" PASS: Declarative statement, specific number/fact, named scenario, or emotional setup Rule 3: No AI tells FAIL: Contains any of: delve , certainly , game changing , game changer , it's worth noting , invaluable , unleash , revolutionize , transformative PASS: None of those words detected Rule 4: No generic closers FAIL: Ends with (or contains near the end): what do you think , drop a comment , thoughts? , let me know in the comments , agree? , sound familiar? PASS: Ends with a statement, directive, punchline, or thread hook Rule 5: Corey Test (specificity) FAIL: Uses vague language without specifics — "it changed how I work", "massive results", "so much better" — no numbers, names, or concrete outcomes PASS: Contains at least one specific: a number, timeframe, named tool, or concrete result Rule 6: Character count PASS: 280 characters or fewer THREAD PASS: Over 280 chars BUT sections are numbered (1/, 2/, 3/) or clearly separated with line breaks — count as PASS FAIL: Over 280 chars with no thread formatting Rule 7: Single point FAIL: Makes 3+ distinct unrelated claims with no clear through line PASS: One core idea, even if supported by 2–3 details Rule 8: Punchy rhythm FAIL: Any sentence over 20 words OR preamble like "I've been thinking a lot about..." / "Something I've noticed recently is..." PASS: Short sentences, no preamble, gets to the point by line 2 at latest PHASE 3: OUTPUT Print this exact format: Scoring table (passes → score): Passes Score 8 10/10 7 9/10 6 8/10 5 6/10 4 5/10 3 4/10 2 3/10 1 1/10 0 0/10 If score ≥ 7: If score < 7 — add a rewrite: PHASE 4: SELF CRITIQUE Before delivering the output, check: 1. All 8 rules evaluated — Count the rule lines in your output. There must be exactly 8. If any are missing, add them. 2. Score matches pass count — Count the ✅ marks. Verify the score matches the table above. Correct it if not. 3. Rewrite quality — If a rewrite was provided, check it against all 8 rules mentally. Does it pass the ones the original failed? If the rewrite would score below 7 itself, rewrite it again. 4. Reason quality — Each rule result must have a specific reason, not a generic one. "Too vague" is not enough — say what specifically is vague. Fix anything that fails before delivering. Example Review Input: Output: Batch Mode Output When scanning a folder, output one review block per file: Requirements Claude Code with bash tool access (for folder scan mode) No external APIs — pure LLM reasoning for the review Tweet drafts folder at content/tweet drafts/ (optional — direct paste always works) Files in the drafts folder are marked reviewed: true to skip them in future scans

tweet-draft-reviewer