Marketing

Content brief

Use this skill when a topic has been chosen and a writer needs to produce something that sounds like the firm rather than like anyone. Produces a brief they can work from without three follow-up questions: the reader in a line, the angle as a claim, the firm's actual position with sources, the structure marked for priority, the usable evidence, and what to avoid. Also use for "brief this for the writer", "what's the angle", "write the content brief", "hand this topic off".

Tapajyoti (Tukan) DasCEO, Gia

Say something like

“brief this for the writer”“what's the angle”“write the content brief”“hand this topic off”

content-brief editorial writer-handoff point-of-view thought-leadership

SKILL.mdView on GitHub

Applies once the topic is decided and before anyone drafts. Produces the brief, not the piece.

The play

Find what the firm genuinely thinks about this topic before setting an angle. Past calls, posts, client work, anything the founder has said out loud. This is the step that decides whether the piece is worth publishing, because the firm's real position is the only thing in the piece a competitor cannot also write.
If the firm has no position, say so and offer two or three candidate angles for the owner to choose between. An invented point of view gets published, gets challenged, and then has to be walked back in public.
Write the reader in one line: who they are, what they already believe about this topic, and what they are trying to do. Not a persona document. One line a writer can hold in their head while drafting.
Set the angle as a claim, not a subject. "Why retainers break at fifteen clients" is an angle. "Agency scaling" is a topic, and handing a writer a topic is how a brief produces a survey of everything anyone has said.
State the firm's position in two or three sentences, with the source attached. If it came from a call or a post, name it so the writer can go read the original rather than paraphrasing a paraphrase.
Build the structure as sections with one line each on what the section does. Mark which sections carry the argument and which are supporting, so a writer cutting for length cuts the padding and not the point.
List the evidence actually available: results, client examples, data the firm holds. Mark anything that needs client approval before use. A writer who discovers at draft stage that the best example cannot be named rewrites the whole middle.
List what to avoid: claims the firm cannot make, positioning it has moved away from, words it does not use, and what an existing published piece already covers.
Draft the opening line or two in the firm's voice. The open is where drafts go generic, and giving the writer a starting note is cheaper than editing a generic one later.

What good looks like

First thing I check that most people skip: whether the brief contains a position somebody could disagree with. If it does not, whatever gets drafted will default to what is already on the public internet, and that is average by definition.
The mediocre version: a topic, a word count and a keyword, with the thinking left to whoever writes it. The writer is then being asked to invent the firm's point of view, which is not their job and not something they can do.
I know it is right when the writer does not come back asking what we think. If they have to ask, the brief did not contain the one thing only we could supply.
Second test: the position has a source attached, a specific call or post, so the writer reads the original instead of a paraphrase of a paraphrase.
Red flag: the angle could have been written by somebody who has never spoken to a client. That is the test, and most briefs fail it.

Rules

MUST find the firm's existing position before setting an angle.
MUST write the angle as a claim, not a subject.
MUST attach a source to the firm's stated position.
MUST mark which sections carry the argument.
MUST flag evidence that needs client approval.
MUST name what an already-published piece covers.
NEVER invent the firm's position. Leave it open and offer options.
NEVER list evidence that cannot be confirmed.
NEVER write the piece. This is the brief.

Help me install the skill named "content-brief" from this GitHub URL in Claude: https://github.com/agiea-brain/agency-skills/tree/main/skills/tapajyoti-das/content-brief Prepare only the "content-brief" skill, not other skills in the repository. Inspect each complete skill folder, not just SKILL.md. Preserve the original instructions and include all supporting files (such as references, scripts, templates and assets), keeping their relative paths intact. Package each skill as a downloadable ZIP containing its skill folder with SKILL.md directly inside that folder. If a skill only contains SKILL.md, package that folder too. Give me the download link for each ZIP and walk me through uploading and enabling it under Settings, Capabilities, Skills in Claude. If you cannot access GitHub or create downloadable files here, explain what I need to download and how to package and upload it myself. Do not invent missing files or claim the skill is installed before I upload it.

Content brief

Tapajyoti (Tukan) DasCEO, Gia

The play

Find what the firm genuinely thinks about this topic before setting an angle. Past calls, posts, client work, anything the founder has said out loud. This is the step that decides whether the piece is worth publishing, because the firm's real position is the only thing in the piece a competitor cannot also write.

If the firm has no position, say so and offer two or three candidate angles for the owner to choose between. An invented point of view gets published, gets challenged, and then has to be walked back in public.

Write the reader in one line: who they are, what they already believe about this topic, and what they are trying to do. Not a persona document. One line a writer can hold in their head while drafting.

Set the angle as a claim, not a subject. "Why retainers break at fifteen clients" is an angle. "Agency scaling" is a topic, and handing a writer a topic is how a brief produces a survey of everything anyone has said.

State the firm's position in two or three sentences, with the source attached. If it came from a call or a post, name it so the writer can go read the original rather than paraphrasing a paraphrase.

Build the structure as sections with one line each on what the section does. Mark which sections carry the argument and which are supporting, so a writer cutting for length cuts the padding and not the point.

List the evidence actually available: results, client examples, data the firm holds. Mark anything that needs client approval before use. A writer who discovers at draft stage that the best example cannot be named rewrites the whole middle.

List what to avoid: claims the firm cannot make, positioning it has moved away from, words it does not use, and what an existing published piece already covers.

Draft the opening line or two in the firm's voice. The open is where drafts go generic, and giving the writer a starting note is cheaper than editing a generic one later.

What good looks like

First thing I check that most people skip: whether the brief contains a position somebody could disagree with. If it does not, whatever gets drafted will default to what is already on the public internet, and that is average by definition.

The mediocre version: a topic, a word count and a keyword, with the thinking left to whoever writes it. The writer is then being asked to invent the firm's point of view, which is not their job and not something they can do.

I know it is right when the writer does not come back asking what we think. If they have to ask, the brief did not contain the one thing only we could supply.

Second test: the position has a source attached, a specific call or post, so the writer reads the original instead of a paraphrase of a paraphrase.

Red flag: the angle could have been written by somebody who has never spoken to a client. That is the test, and most briefs fail it.

Rules

MUST find the firm's existing position before setting an angle.

MUST write the angle as a claim, not a subject.

MUST attach a source to the firm's stated position.

MUST mark which sections carry the argument.

MUST flag evidence that needs client approval.

MUST name what an already-published piece covers.

NEVER invent the firm's position. Leave it open and offer options.

NEVER list evidence that cannot be confirmed.

NEVER write the piece. This is the brief.