Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Validate content framing on joy-grievance spectrum.
.claude/skills/notque-joy-check/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-06 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 130% | 0% |
| case-07 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 131% | 0% |
| case-08 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 97% | 0% |
| case-17 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 96% | 0% |
| case-09 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 59% | 0% |
Validate content framing using mode-specific rubrics. Two modes:
By default the skill evaluates each paragraph/instruction independently, produces a score (0-100), and suggests reframes without modifying content. Optional flags: --fix rewrites flagged items in place and re-verifies; --strict fails on any item below 60; --mode writing|instruction overrides auto-detection.
This skill checks framing, not topic and not voice. Voice fidelity belongs to voice-validator, AI pattern detection belongs to the private de-AI editor skill.
| Signal | Load These Files | Why | |---|---|---| | scoring instruction files (agents, skills, pipelines): positive-framing rubric | instruction-rubric.md | Loads detailed guidance from instruction-rubric.md. | | scoring human-facing prose (blog posts, emails, docs): joy-grievance rubric | writing-rubric.md | Loads detailed guidance from writing-rubric.md. |
Goal: Determine which rubric to apply based on file location or explicit flag.
Auto-detection rules (in priority order):
--mode writing|instruction flag → use that modeagents/*.md → instructionskills/*/SKILL.md → instructionskills/workflow/references/*.md → instructionCLAUDE.md or README.md → instructionLoad the rubric: Read references/{mode}-rubric.md for the scoring criteria, patterns, and examples relevant to this mode.
GATE: Mode determined, rubric loaded. Proceed to Phase 1.
Goal: Use regex scanning as a fast gate to catch obvious patterns before spending LLM tokens on semantic analysis.
For writing mode: Run the regex-based scanner for grievance patterns:
bashpython3 ~/.claude/scripts/scan-negative-framing.py [file]
For instruction mode: Run a grep scan for prohibition patterns:
bashgrep -nE 'NEVER|do NOT|must NOT|FORBIDDEN' [file] grep -nE "^-?\s*Don't|^-?\s*Avoid|^#+.*Anti-[Pp]attern|^#+.*Avoid" [file]
Handle hits: Report findings with suggested reframes from the loaded rubric. If --fix mode is active, apply reframes and re-run to confirm clean.
GATE: Regex/grep scan returns zero hits. Resolve obvious patterns before proceeding to Phase 2 — mechanical fixes come first.
Goal: Read the content and evaluate each item against the loaded rubric using LLM semantic understanding.
Step 1: Read the content
Read the full file. Skip frontmatter (YAML between --- markers) and code blocks.
Step 2: Evaluate against the rubric
Apply the scoring dimensions from the loaded rubric (references/{mode}-rubric.md). Each rubric defines its own PASS/FAIL dimensions, subtle patterns to detect, and contextual exceptions.
For writing mode: Evaluate through the joy-grievance lens. Watch for the subtle patterns described in references/writing-rubric.md (defensive disclaimers, accumulative grievance, passive-aggressive factuality, reluctant generosity).
For instruction mode: Evaluate through the positive-negative lens. Check each instruction against the patterns table in references/instruction-rubric.md. Apply contextual exceptions — subordinate negatives attached to positive instructions are PASS, as are negatives in code examples, writing samples, and technical terms.
Step 3: Score each item
Apply the scoring scale from the loaded rubric. For any item scoring in the lower tiers (CAUTION/GRIEVANCE for writing, NEGATIVE-LEANING/PROHIBITION-HEAVY for instruction), draft a specific reframe suggestion that preserves the substance while shifting the framing.
When an item seems subtle enough to question flagging — that is precisely when flagging matters most. Subtle patterns are what the regex/grep pre-filter misses, making them the primary purpose of this LLM analysis phase.
GATE: All items analyzed and scored. Reframe suggestions drafted for all flagged items. Proceed to Phase 3.
Goal: Produce a structured report with scores, findings, and reframe suggestions.
Step 1: Calculate overall score
Average all item scores. Pass criteria come from the loaded rubric:
Step 2: Output the report
JOY CHECK: [file]
Mode: [writing|instruction]
Score: [0-100]
Status: PASS / FAIL
Items:
[writing mode]
P1 (L10-12): JOY [85] -- explorer framing, curiosity
P3 (L18-22): CAUTION [40] -- "confused" leans defensive
-> Reframe: Focus on what you learned from the confusion
[instruction mode]
L33: NEGATIVE [20] -- "NEVER edit code directly"
-> Rewrite: "Route all code modifications to domain agents"
L45: PASS [90] -- "Create feature branches for all changes"
L78: PASS [85] -- "Credentials stay in .env files, never in code" (subordinate negative OK)
Overall: [summary of framing arc]Step 3: Handle fix mode
If --fix mode is active:
GATE: Report produced. If --fix, all rewrites applied and re-verified. Joy check complete.
This skill integrates with content and toolkit pipelines:
Writing pipeline (human-facing content):
CONTENT --> voice-validator --> scan-ai-patterns --> joy-check --mode writing --> de-AI edit (private skill)Instruction pipeline (agent/skill/pipeline creation and modification):
SKILL.md --> joy-check --mode instruction --> fix flagged patterns --> re-verifyAuto-invocation points:
skill-creator pipeline: Run joy-check --mode instruction after generating a new skillagent-upgrade pipeline: Run joy-check --mode instruction after modifying an agentvoice-writer: Run joy-check --mode writing during validationdoc-pipeline: Run joy-check --mode instruction for toolkit documentationThe joy-check can be invoked standalone via /joy-check [file] (auto-detects mode) or with explicit --mode writing|instruction.
Cause: Path incorrect or file does not exist Solution:
ls -la [path]Glob **/*.mdCause: scan-negative-framing.py script missing or Python error Solution:
ls scripts/scan-negative-framing.pypython3 --version (requires 3.10+)Cause: Content is fundamentally framed through grievance -- not recoverable with paragraph-level reframes Solution:
Cause: Rewritten paragraphs keep introducing new CAUTION/GRIEVANCE patterns, often because the underlying premise is grievance-based Solution:
references/writing-rubric.md — Joy-grievance spectrum, subtle patterns, scoring, examples (writing mode)references/instruction-rubric.md — Positive framing rules, patterns to flag, rewrite strategies, examples (instruction mode)scan-negative-framing.py — Regex pre-filter for grievance patterns (writing mode, Phase 1)voice-validator — Voice fidelity validation (different concern)~/private-skills)voice-writer — Content pipeline that invokes joy-check as a validation phaseskill-creator — Skill creation pipeline that invokes joy-check in instruction mode| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-01 | fail→fail | 4,988 | 5,570 | +12% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 763 | 2,574 | +237% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→fail | 4,845 | 6,251 | +29% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 264 | 2,676 | +914% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | 5,590 | 5,511 | -1% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 896 | 2,683 | +199% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | fail→fail | 11,775 | 5,903 | -50% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 926 | 2,537 | +174% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | pass→fail | 11,726 | 6,295 | -46% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,613 | 2,641 | +64% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | fail→pass | 8,388 | 7,039 | -16% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,264 | 2,912 | +130% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | fail→pass | 7,355 | 3,278 | -55% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,179 | 2,722 | +131% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | fail→pass | 8,419 | 1,838 | -78% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,316 | 2,588 | +97% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | fail→pass | 9,589 | 3,150 | -67% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,442 | 2,827 | +96% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | fail→pass | 11,319 | 2,651 | -77% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,713 | 2,732 | +59% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | fail→pass | 8,975 | 2,259 | -75% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,336 | 2,607 | +95% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | fail→pass | 14,677 | 1,895 | -87% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,265 | 2,458 | +9% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | fail→pass | 15,588 | 1,823 | -88% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,328 | 2,511 | +8% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | fail→pass | 8,382 | 3,799 | -55% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,264 | 2,872 | +127% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | pass→pass | 10,465 | 2,394 | -77% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,504 | 2,646 | +76% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | fail→pass | 8,556 | 2,211 | -74% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,213 | 2,494 | +106% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | pass→pass | 9,634 | 3,137 | -67% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,305 | 2,802 | +115% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | fail→fail | 4,054 | 29,919 | +638% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 624 | 3,355 | +438% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | fail→fail | 5,062 | 1,672 | -67% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 797 | 2,505 | +214% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | fail→pass | 6,729 | 2,333 | -65% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 977 | 2,559 | +162% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | pass→fail | 3,738 | 12,407 | +232% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 467 | 4,342 | +830% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→fail | 3,712 | 7,383 | +99% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 536 | 2,627 | +390% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted, and 16 counted toward the lift figure. The other 6 produced results that are not comparable between the two arms, so they are excluded from the headline rather than averaged into it. The headline lift of +36 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 16 comparable cases. 3 cases got worse with the skill loaded, and they are included in that figure.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.