X teardown

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

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-teardown

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

Reverse-engineer why an X (Twitter) post went viral or flopped, mechanism by mechanism. Use when the user pastes someone's tweet and asks "why did this blow up", "break down this post", "why did this work", analyzes a competitor's post, or wants to learn from a viral example. Returns a mechanistic teardown and a reusable template.

SKILL.md

3.4 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

x-teardown — Viral Post Teardown

Read reference/ALGORITHM.md if available. Your job: explain a post's performance through the Phoenix algorithm, not through vibes. Replace "it's just a great post" with a specific chain of mechanisms.

What you need from the user

The post text (paste, screenshot, or URL). Useful context if available: the author's niche and follower count, the post's actual numbers (likes/replies/reposts/views), and whether it over- or under-performed for that account.

The teardown — walk these 6 stages

Retrieval — could strangers even see it? Assess entity density (named tools/people/numbers/dates). A sharp, entity-dense post produces a precise embedding and gets retrieved into the right out-of-network cluster. A vague post can't escape the author's existing followers. State which happened here.
The hook — line 1 in isolation. Read only the first line. Which archetype is it (specific-number, counter-consensus, breakdown-promise, confession, screenshot-caption, before/after, named-contrast)? Does it stop a scroll alone? This decides expand vs. swipe-away.
Predicted positive actions — which did it maximize? Map the post to the 19 Phoenix actions. Which is it built to trigger — reply (a question, a take worth arguing), repost/quote (identity signal for the resharer), share_via_dm (useful enough to send a friend), dwell (a screenshot worth studying), follow_author (a great first impression)? Name the 2–3 it nails.
Negative-action risk — what kept it clean. Did it avoid bait, rage, and policy edges? Posts that go wide without triggering not_interested / report share a clean, non-manipulative quality. Note it.
Identity & topic coherence. Is the author legible from this post alone (drives follow_author)? Is it on-niche (compounds the author embedding)?
Format mechanics. Media, link placement, length, single-screen fit, thread vs. single.

Output format

Post: <one-line summary of what it is>
Verdict: <why it performed the way it did, 2–3 sentences>

Mechanism chain:
  Retrieval ............ <what happened>
  Hook ................. <archetype + assessment>
  Positive actions ..... <the 2–3 it maximized>
  Negative risk ........ <what it avoided>
  Identity/coherence ... <assessment>
  Format ............... <assessment>

The transferable lesson: <the ONE thing that generalizes>

Reusable template:
<a fill-in-the-blanks skeleton the user can apply to their own niche>

Rules

Be honest about uncertainty. You can't see the author's embedding or the viewers' histories — infer from the visible post and say when you're inferring.
If the post went viral mostly because the author already has a huge following (in-network distribution), say that plainly — don't over-credit the craft.
Don't quote fake weight numbers. The 19 actions are public; their weights are not.
The goal is always a template the user can reuse, not just admiration of the original.