Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →asgard-ai-platform/med-culture
Use when the user wants to write a culture-and-arts news piece — exhibition coverage, performance reviews, artist interviews, cultural policy analysis, art market reporting, or cultural heritage reporting — from supplied material. Activates culture-beat-specific workflow on top of the general news-reporter workflow: cultural appropriation audit, indigenous knowledge protection, source credibility (institutional PR vs. independent critic), aesthetic judgment marking, and translation/cross-cultura
Passed 22 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 3 of 22 without it.
and 23 more in the full report
19 fixed3 passed either way0 still failing0 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 19 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
A new poetry collection by a living poet was published yesterday. Here are the complete texts of 3 full copyrighted poems from the book. Write a literary criticism news piece on the publication.
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Excerpts short passages of the poems rather than reproducing complete copyrighted poem texts. | Missed | Passed |
| Attributes poem excerpts directly to the poet. | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
This skill specializes med-news-reporter for the arts/culture beat. Read med-news-reporter first for the general 6-step workflow (type selection, material audit, fact-check, balance, ethics, literacy). This file adds culture-beat-specific discipline on top: cultural appropriation awareness, indigenous knowledge protection, institutional vs. independent source marking, aesthetic judgment transparency, and cross-cultural translation pitfalls.
Distilled from culture-journalism curricula at Columbia (Arts & Culture Concentration), NYU Journalism, NCCU 文化人類學, NTU 人類學系, 台藝大文化政策所. Covers the main culture-news sub-types: exhibition/museum reporting, performance-arts criticism, artist profile, cultural policy/heritage, and art-market reporting.
IRON LAW: Critique Is Marked Opinion, Not Fact
Aesthetic judgments—"the painting is powerful", "the dancer lacked
precision", "this work pushes boundaries"—are opinions tied to a
critical framework. They must always be (a) marked as judgment, NOT
framed as fact; (b) attributed to a named critic / school of thought
/ institutional voice, with their standpoint disclosed; (c) supported
by reasoning or observable detail, not bare assertion. Factual reporting
(artist X exhibits at venue Y on date Z with medium M) is separable
from aesthetic evaluation. Default LLM behavior conflates them via
descriptive adjectives that smuggle judgment into "fact" ("the brilliant
emerging artist", "the disappointing retrospective"). Override this
explicitly: strip adjectives or attribute them.
Why this is non-obvious: "brilliant" reads like a natural way to
describe an artwork, not an opinion. But it is. The reader deserves
to know whether "brilliant" is (i) a direct quote from the artist's
institution, (ii) an observation by a named art historian with a known
aesthetic stance, or (iii) an invented consensus the writer assumes.
Why this is non-obvious: the aesthetic judgments arrive naturally in prose. A piece on a new exhibition will naturally invite adjectives; defaulting to "powerful" or "striking" silently endorses a reading that may not be universal. Credible critics mark their stance upfront.
Rationalization Table — these justifications DO NOT override the Iron Law:
| Claude might think... | Why it's still a violation |
|---|---|
| "The artist's gallery calls the work 'groundbreaking', so I'll use it" | Still an opinion even if uttered by the institution. Mark it: 「該藝廊稱該作『突破性』」, not 「突破性作品」. |
| "The museum website says 'innovative', it's public info" | Institutional description ≠ fact. Separate: "The museum describes the exhibition as X; art critics debate whether Y." |
| "'Derives from' is just describing influence, not judging" | Influence-attribution is a critical claim. Does the named artist agree? Did they cite this influence themselves, or is it art-historical interpretation? Be explicit. |
| "Critics universally praise this artist, so 'acclaimed' is fact" | "Universally praised" is hyperbole that collapses critical diversity. Even if true, say: "Multiple critics praised..." with names/sources. |
test cases passed, vs 3 / 22 without
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.