X audit

Skill lxyang20131208-star/x-algorithm-skills/skills/x-audit

Claude Code skills for growing on X (Twitter), built on the open-source xai-org/x-algorithm (Phoenix) code — audit, write, and reverse-engineer posts the way the algorithm actually ranks them.

Install

npx -y skills add lxyang20131208-star/x-algorithm-skills --skill x-audit

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

0 stars0 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Audit a draft X (Twitter) post or thread against the open-source X algorithm BEFORE publishing. Use when the user shares a tweet draft and wants feedback, asks "will this do well on X / Twitter", "review my post", "is this good to post", or wants to improve reach before posting. Returns a PASS / FLAG / BLOCK verdict per dimension plus a concrete rewrite.

SKILL.md

3.8 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

x-audit — Pre-Post Algorithm Audit

You are auditing a draft X post against how the Phoenix ranking model actually distributes content. Read reference/ALGORITHM.md in this repo first if available — the audit dimensions below map directly to it.

What you need from the user

The draft post text (single post or thread). If they didn't paste it, ask for it. Also useful but optional: their niche/topic, their follower count, whether they have Premium.

The audit — score these 8 dimensions

For each dimension give a verdict — PASS / FLAG / BLOCK — and one line of reasoning.

Retrieval sharpness — Out-of-network reach is two-tower embedding similarity. Count the concrete entities: named tools, people, companies, numbers, dates. 0–1 entities → BLOCK (fuzzy embedding, reaches no one). 2–3 → FLAG. 4+ → PASS.
Hook (line 1) — Read ONLY the first line. Does it stop a scroll on its own? Generic openers ("Excited to announce", "Some thoughts on…", "A thread 🧵") → BLOCK.
Predicted positive actions — Would the target reader genuinely reply, share, or DM this to a friend? If the post is informative but inert (nothing to react to, nothing worth saving) → FLAG. share_via_dm is a real ranking signal — "would someone send this to a friend" is the test.
Negative-signal risk — Phoenix predicts not_interested / block / mute / report and subtracts them. Engagement-bait ("like if you agree", "comment X for the link"), rage-bait, manufactured outrage, vague hustle-porn → BLOCK. These don't just fail, they score negative.
Identity legibility — follow_author is a predicted action. Could a stranger who sees only this post tell who you are and what you do? If not → FLAG (you'll get reach but no follows).
Topic coherence — Does this match the account's niche? An off-topic post blurs the author embedding and weakens future retrieval. Off-niche → FLAG.
Format & mechanics — Check: external link in the body (should be in a self-reply) → BLOCK. More than 2 hashtags → FLAG. Doesn't fit one phone screen without scrolling → FLAG. Media not in 1:1 / 4:5 / 9:16 → FLAG.
Policy / grox risk — The grox service runs spam + policy classification before ranking. Spammy phrasing, policy-edge content, link-farm patterns → FLAG or BLOCK.

Output format

VERDICT: PASS / FLAG / BLOCK   (BLOCK if any dimension is BLOCK; FLAG if any is FLAG)

Dimension breakdown:
  Retrieval sharpness ...... PASS/FLAG/BLOCK — <reason>
  Hook ..................... PASS/FLAG/BLOCK — <reason>
  ... (all 8)

Top 3 fixes (most reach impact first):
  1. <specific, actionable>
  2. ...
  3. ...

Rewrite:
<a full rewritten version of the post that would PASS — keep the user's voice,
 facts, and intent; do not invent data they didn't give you>

Rules

Never invent metrics, results, or facts the user didn't provide. If the post is weak because it lacks specifics, say so and ask the user for the missing numbers rather than fabricating them.
The numeric ranking weights are not public. Don't claim "this is worth 13.5×". Speak in terms of which predicted actions a change helps.
Be direct. A BLOCK is more useful than a polite FLAG. Founders want the real read.
If the draft is already strong, say PASS and stop — don't manufacture problems.