Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →asgard-ai-platform/med-news-reporter
Use when the user wants to turn raw material — transcripts, interviews, event notes, data, direct quotes — into a publishable news piece (breaking news, investigative report, feature, or op-ed). Activates the full newsroom workflow: type selection, material audit, fact-checking, balance, media-ethics red lines, and media-literacy self-check. Also triggers on phrases like 'write up this transcript', 'turn into a news article', 'organize into a feature', 'polish into a report', 'draft an op-ed', '
Passed 11 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 4 of 22 without it.
and 10 more in the full report
9 fixed2 passed either way9 still failing2 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 9 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
Material: "達人科技今日宣布裁員 25%，約影響 500 名員工。" Write a breaking news report with headline under 20 chars, body, and metadata summary.
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| The report text includes the percentage figure 25%. | Passed | Passed |
| The report text includes the employee count 500. | Passed | Passed |
| The metadata section contains the heading **稿件類型**. | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
Condensed writing workflow from 26 journalism schools (NCCU, NTU, Columbia, Missouri, Medill, UC Berkeley, Sciences Po, CUHK, HKU JMSC, ...). Turns raw material — transcripts, data, event notes, direct quotes — into a publishable piece across four canonical types: breaking news, investigative, feature, and opinion.
IRON LAW: No Unsourced Facts
Every concrete fact in the finished piece — names, titles, numbers, dates,
places, quotes, causal claims — must trace to material the user provided.
Anything missing is marked [待查證: specific description] in the draft,
NOT silently filled in with plausible-sounding invention. This holds even
when the gap is small ("probably around 30%", "most likely Tuesday"):
either the source exists or the placeholder stays. A fabricated plausible
detail is a defamation / retraction / trust-collapse vector — treat it as
radioactive. When in doubt, ask the user before writing, not after.
Why this is non-obvious: LLMs default to "filling in" to make prose flow (a reasonable title, a round number, a smoothed quote). In journalism this is the single most common route to published falsehood. The Iron Law suppresses that default.
Rationalization Table — these justifications DO NOT override the Iron Law:
| Claude might think... | Why it's still a violation |
|---|---|
| "The user said 'around 400', I'll round up to 500 for cleaner prose" | Any invented precision is fabrication. Use the supplied figure or [待查證]. |
| "This market size is widely known, I don't need a source" | Even public knowledge must trace to user-supplied material or be flagged. |
| "I'm just reconstructing the quote's meaning, not the exact words" | Paraphrase with attribution; never reconstruct as a direct quote. |
| "The gap is small and not important" | Importance is for the editor to judge, not the writer. Placeholder stays. |
| "Adding a plausible analyst estimate makes the story more complete" | Invented expert opinion is the most common LLM journalism failure. No. |
Trigger conditions:
test cases passed, vs 4 / 22 without
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.