Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add Glad-Labs/poindexter --skill content-qagit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Glad-Labs/poindexterWrote 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/glad-labs/poindexter/content-qa)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/glad-labs/poindexter/content-qa"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/glad-labs/poindexter/content-qa/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/glad-labs/poindexter/content-qa"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/glad-labs/poindexter/content-qa.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 | $0.00084 | $0.04870 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00042 | $0.02435 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00974 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00487 |
Grade A, and why
content-qa 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 9d 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 — 474 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Content QA skill
The adversarial quality-assurance pack — the QA moat. These prompts drive
the multi-model QA stage: topic-delivery and internal-consistency gates, the
publication-readiness critic, the aggregate-rewrite pass, writer self-review
for contradictions, the self-consistency sampling rail, an LLM quality rubric,
and the two vision-QA prompts. The architect routes on the description above;
UnifiedPromptManager resolves each template by key (Langfuse override still
wins over the bodies below).
Default prompts — basic but functional; production-quality prompt packs ship as a premium add-on.
qa.content_review
Review this content for quality. Return JSON with keys: score (1-10), issues (list), suggestions (list).
Content: {content}
qa.self_critique
Self-critique this content. Return JSON with keys: strengths (list), weaknesses (list), improvements (list).
Content: {content}
qa.topic_delivery
You are a strict editor checking whether an article
delivers on its topic. A reader clicking this article expects what the topic
promises. Did the writer deliver?
REQUESTED TOPIC: {topic}
ARTICLE OPENING (first ~1000 words):
{opening}
Check these specific failure modes:
1. Numeric promises. If the topic says "10 X" or "11 Y" or "5 Z", does the
body actually list that many? Partial lists (two items then a pivot to
generalities) FAIL.
2. Named entities. If the topic names a specific product, person, or
technology ("Llama 4", "Claude", "indie hackers making $1M+"), does the
body actually discuss that specific thing? An article titled "Llama 4"
that only discusses Llama 3.1 FAILS.
3. Format promise. If the topic implies a guide, tutorial, list, or review,
does the body deliver that format? A "guide" that's actually an opinion
piece FAILS.
4. Angle/thesis. Is the article's thesis actually about the topic, or did
the writer pivot to a tangential point they preferred?
Respond with ONLY valid JSON:
{{"delivers": true/false, "score": NUMBER 0-100, "reason": "concise — name the specific gap when one exists"}}
Scoring guidance: delivers=true and score 85-100 if the body is a faithful
execution of the topic. delivers=false and score 0-40 if the body is a
bait-and-switch or numeric underdelivery or misnamed version. delivers=true
and score 60-80 if the body is mostly on-topic but weaker than the topic
implies.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 474 lines · 84 tokens per session scan A 4859787f93a0
content-qa is a skill published in the GitHub repository Glad-Labs/poindexter (5 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 84 tokens to every session and 4,870 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
spec-generate
Product Spec Builder that helps PMs generate clear, structured, testable PRDs. Creates both full and lightweight specs for any product or platform with a guided step-by-step workflow. Output in English Markdown format.
product-team
A Chinese-language product development workflow led by one AI team lead taking several roles: product strategy, requirements writing, prototype creation, and user-experience review.
Playwright (Automation + MCP + Scraper)
Browser automation via Playwright MCP. Navigate websites, click elements, fill forms, take screenshots, extract data, and debug real browser workflows. Use when (1) you need a real browser, not static fetch; (2) the task involves Playwright MCP, browser tools, Playwright tests, scripts, or JS-rendered pages; (3) the…
ux-walkthrough-skill
A user-experience review process that examines a product’s screens and user journeys against its product requirements document (PRD). It checks consistency, accessibility, errors, and whether users can complete tasks clearly.
glmocr
An optical character recognition tool that extracts printed text, tables, mathematical formulas, and handwriting from images or PDFs.
cli-anything
A tool-building workflow that turns software controlled through a graphical interface—such as GIMP or Blender—into a command-line tool. The resulting tool can return machine-readable JSON as well as text for people.