Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to friedbotstudio/baseline. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/friedbotstudio/baseline/main/.claude/skills/technical-writer/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/friedbotstudio/baselineWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/friedbotstudio/baseline/technical-writer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/friedbotstudio/baseline/technical-writer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/friedbotstudio/baseline/technical-writer/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/friedbotstudio/baseline/technical-writer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/friedbotstudio/baseline/technical-writer.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00078 | $0.01578 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00031 | $0.00631 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00316 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00158 |
Grade A, and why
technical-writer scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 120 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
This skill is the pipeline. technical-writing carries the craft rules and the measured targets; this skill says what order to do things in, what to gather first, and what must pass before a page is done.
Two failure modes it exists to prevent:
- Writing before knowing. A page drafted from the model's impression of a system is fluent and unfalsifiable. It reads as generated because it is describing a guess. Step 1 is not optional.
- Passing the checks in the wrong order. Simplifying after de-slopping reintroduces phrasing that the de-slop pass already cleaned, so the pass has to run twice and the second run flattens the prose.
Step 1 — Prepare context
Nothing is drafted until this is done. Produce a source table before writing a sentence.
- Read the implementation, not the description of it. For each claim the page will make, open the file that makes it true — the hook script, the config key, the CLI parser, the schema. Record
path:line. - Run the thing where running it is cheap. A flag table copied from a parser is right; a flag table recalled is not. Capture real output for the examples.
- Reconcile against the governing docs. Where this repository has a constitution, a genesis spec, or a manifest, the page must not contradict it. Note the Article or section each claim answers to.
- Check third-party APIs against current documentation before describing them (the declared documentation provider, official docs, or a pinned local cache). Never from recall.
- List what you could not verify. Anything left unverified is cut from the draft or written as an explicit open question. It is never softened into a vague sentence.
Output of this step is a working note: claim → source → verified date. Every factual sentence in the finished page traces back to a row in it.
If the source material is thin, the page is thin. Do not pad it with description. A short page that is entirely true is the correct deliverable.
Step 2 — Classify and shape
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 1mo ago First seen · 120 lines · 78 tokens per session scan A 9a5806349764
technical-writer is a skill published in the GitHub repository friedbotstudio/baseline (14 stars, last pushed 13d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 78 tokens to every session and 1,578 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review-with-lsp
Code review with LSP-powered code intelligence. Uses MCP tools (diagnostics, hover, references, definition, symbols) for semantic code understanding, not just text grep.
i18n-check
An internationalization (i18n) check for software that supports multiple languages. It compares translation files with the text and translation keys used by the code.
vue-best-practices
A review checklist for Vue 2 and Vue 3 components, covering component names, prop declarations, TypeScript casts, API styles and complex template expressions.
gdpr-audit
GDPR compliance audit of code, plans, schemas, or IaC. Produces a findings report with article citations, severity, confidence, and fixes; flags evidence gaps. Not a substitute for a DPO/lawyer.
cognitive-walkthrough
Deep-dive usability evaluation of specific user tasks. Simulates novice user cognition step-by-step to identify learnability issues, unclear actions, and points of confusion.
owasp-ai-testing
AI trustworthiness testing using OWASP AI Testing Guide v1. Execute 32 test cases across 4 layers (Application, Model, Infrastructure, Data) with practical payloads and remediation.