x-five-piece-checklist

Five-Piece Set Checklist — Content Completeness + Evidence Standards

R — Original Text (Reading)

"A strong piece of content often resembles a small information product: ① a value promise understandable at first glance — what does this have to do with me; ② a specific use scenario — when will I use this; ③ steps, entry points, or explanations that lower the barrier — can I start right now; ④ evidence such as screenshots, numbers, and cases — why should I believe it; ⑤ a reason worth bookmarking or reposting — why should I keep it." Evidence must satisfy the "three-able": visible (screenshots/screen recordings), clickable (links/tool names), calculable (numbers/costs/steps). Including "address in comments" raises the probability of reaching the top 10% to about 40%.

— Xiangyang Qiaomu, X Viral Secrets Sharing · Five-Piece Set Checklist / Three-Able

I — Methodology Skeleton (Interpretation)

Treat a tweet as a "small information product" and self-check it before publishing. The five-piece set is five reader decision points, each answering one question:

Value promise → "What does this have to do with me?" — what can be understood and taken away at first glance; not clickbait but a value preview
Use scenario → "When will I use this?" — a specific scenario rather than an abstract feature description
Low-barrier entry point → "Can I start right now?" — steps/links/search paths, lowering the cost of action
Evidence (three-able) → "Why should I believe it?" — visible (screenshots/screen recordings/comparison images), clickable (links/tool names/search paths), calculable (numbers/time/cost/steps), satisfying at least one; data shows that including "address in comments" raises the probability of reaching the top 10% to about 40%, including resource words to about 35%, and including low-barrier signals like "free/simple" to about 30%
Reason to bookmark → "Why should I keep it?" — readers bookmark only if they will use it again in the future; bookmarks > likes as a trust signal

Core insight: the five-piece set isa checking tool, not a writing template — first finish the draft, then check item by item and fill in whatever is missing. Missing any one item is not "a little lacking"; rather, readers drop off directly at that decision stage.

A1 — Application in the Book (Past Application)

Case 1: Feishu Museum Document Post (263K views)

Problem: How to make a resource-sharing post achieve high spread
Use of the methodology: Check item by item — value promise = "1.55 million collections from museums worldwide organized into Feishu, a directly usable entry point" (understandable at first glance); scenario = look up museum collections; entry point = "URL in the comments" (address in comments → probability of reaching the top 10% about 40%); evidence = 1.55 million items (calculable) + "directly usable" (clickable); reason to bookmark = needed for looking up collections in the future
Conclusion: All five items present, especially item 4 satisfying "calculable + clickable," and item 3 using "address in comments" to lower the barrier
Result: 263K views, a representative case of resource-entry-type posts with a median interaction of 2,965

Case 2: Claude Code Crawler Scraping Paul Graham Articles Post (1.71M views, highest)

Problem: How to demonstrate AI tool capabilities while achieving the highest spread
Use of the methodology: Item-by-item comparison — value promise = "prompt to scrape all PG articles and turn them into an epub"; scenario = want to turn the author's complete works into an e-book; entry point = directly given in the prompt (copyable); evidence = all three can be satisfied (visible = result screenshot, clickable = prompt can be copied, calculable = the time number "4 minutes"); reason to save = the prompt can be reused
Conclusion: All five items are complete and the three "can" conditions of the 4th item are all satisfied, making it the highest-exposure case among all cases
Results: 1.71 million views, 400 reposts, 2,293 saves

A2 — Trigger Scenarios (Future Trigger) ★

In what situations will users need this skill?

After the first draft is written and before publishing, doing a completeness check — "help me see what this tweet is still missing"
Struggling with "will anyone save this tweet if I post it" — need to check item by item which item is missing and causing it not to be saved
The post is already written but feels like it is "missing something," and it is hard to say what is missing — need a structured checking tool to locate it
Want to confirm whether the evidence is strong enough — need to use the three "can" conditions to test evidence quality

Language signals (activate when these appear in the user's words)

"help me check what this tweet is still missing" / "checklist for tweet"
"will anyone save this tweet if I post it" / "worth saving"
"is this content complete enough" / "is this tweet complete"
"is the evidence enough" / "need more evidence" / "three can conditions"
"five-piece set" / "five-piece checklist"

Distinction from adjacent skills

Difference from x-four-saves(four-provinces model): the four-provinces model is avaluation tool— "is it worth posting" (help readers save a few steps); the five-piece set is achecking tool— "check for gaps and fill them before posting" (are all five items complete). First use the four-provinces valuation to decide whether to post, then use the five-piece set to check completeness. If the user is still struggling with "is it worth posting," the four-provinces model should be triggered rather than the five-piece set.
Difference from x-short-content-craft(short-content craft): short-content craft is adrafting tool— "how to write it" (choose type + Hook-Body-CTA); the five-piece set is achecking tool— "check after drafting" (are all five items complete). If the user has not yet written a first draft, short-content craft should be triggered rather than the five-piece set.
Difference from x-three-translations(three translations): three translations is arewriting tool— translating announcement-style language into reader language; the 4th item of the five-piece set (evidence) is the test standard for the 3rd translation of the three translations (conclusion → evidence). If the user's question is "how to turn an announcement into help-style expression," three translations should be triggered.

E — Executable Steps (Execution)

When the skill is activated, the agent should execute the following steps:

Check the first draft item by item
- Mark each of the five-piece set one by one with ✓ or ✗: ① value promise ② use scenario ③ low-threshold entry point ④ evidence ⑤ reason to save
- Completion standard: all five items are marked, and it is clear which item is missing
Apply the three "can" conditions test to the 4th item (evidence)
- Check one by one: visible? (has screenshot/screen recording/comparison image) clickable? (has link/tool name/search path) calculable? (has numbers/time/cost/steps)
- Completion standard: the three "can" conditions are marked one by one, with at least one ✓; if none of the three is present, mark it as a "weak claim"
- Stop condition: If the first draft already has numbers + screenshots (computable + visible), the evidence is sufficient; skip directly to step 4
Fill in missing pieces
- Missing value promise → rewrite the first sentence as "what the reader can take away," not "what I published"
- Missing scenario → add a specific use scenario of "when you want to X"
- Missing entry point → add a link/tool name/search path, or use "address in comments" (about 40% chance of making the top 10%)
- Missing evidence → add screenshots/numbers/comparisons; prioritize adding "computable" items (numbers/comparisons are the most lacking and also the most effective)
- Missing reason to save → ask "when will readers come back to look for this in the future," and write the answer into the ending
- Completion standard: every ✗ item has a specific fill-in suggestion
Output the check results
- Format: five-item ✓/✗ checklist + three can-be ✓/✗ + fill-in suggestions (item by item)
- Completion standard: after receiving the results, the user knows what to change and how to change it

B — Boundary ★

Do not use this skill in the following situations

When the first draft has not been written yet — The five-piece set is a checking tool, not a writing template; write first, then check. If the user says "I want to post a tweet teaching people to use Raycast, how should I write it," it should trigger x-short-content-craft
Used to evaluate "whether it is worth posting" — That is the job of x-four-saves(the four-provinces model); the five-piece set assumes you have already decided to post and only checks completeness. If the user says "is this worth posting," it should trigger the four-provinces model
Rigidly requiring all five pieces for purely opinion/story-type content — The five-piece set is most applicable to resource-entry type/tool-tutorial type; ordinary expression type (pure opinion/exclamation) does not rigidly require all five pieces and should first use x-content-archetypes to transform the prototype

Failure modes the author warns about in the book

ce15 (applying overfitted experience as a universal formula) — The five-piece set is a checking tool, not dogma; do not apply it mechanically. Different content prototypes have different degrees of need for the five pieces: resource-entry type/tool-tutorial type cannot lack any of the five, while ordinary expression type does not rigidly require them. Xiangyang Qiaomu notes, "At first glance it seems a bit overfitted; for reference only"

The author's blind spots / era limitations

The five-piece set comes from Xiangyang Qiaomu's personal 3.4G of data (AI/product research track, predominantly male Chinese-speaking audience, specific algorithm versions from 2023-2026); its statistical conclusions (such as the 40% probability for "address in comments") are overfitted results from a personal sample, and data distributions differ across tracks/audiences/periods
The statistical data for the "three can-be" items (40%/35%/30%) is point-in-time data and will drift with algorithm versions; the specific probability numbers are for reference only, and the core logic (concrete evidence is more credible than abstract opinions) does not depend on specific numbers

Adjacent methodologies that are easy to confuse

Four-provinces model (valuation) vs five-piece set (checking): The former is "whether it is worth posting" (saving a few steps), while the latter is "checking for gaps before posting" (all five pieces complete)
Hook-Body-CTA (structure) vs five-piece set (completeness): The former is "how to organize the content" (three-part structure), while the latter is "checking for gaps" (whether the five elements are missing)
Three translations (rewriting) vs the fourth piece of the five-piece set (evidence): The former is "how to turn conclusions into evidence," while the latter is "checking whether the evidence is sufficient (three can-be items)"

Related skills

depends-on x-four-saves: Before checking structural completeness, first go through four-provinces valuation — first judge "whether it is worth posting," then check "whether it is complete." The four provinces are the valuation threshold, and the five-piece set is the structural audit.
composes-with x-three-translations: Three rounds of translation and rewriting for language quality, the five-piece set checks structural completeness, used in combination—after translation, verify whether the evidence satisfies the "three can-do's".
composes-with x-short-content-craft: After drafting, use the five-piece set to check; the two form one production and one inspection—produce first, then check for gaps.

Audit Information

Verification Passed: V1 ✓ / V2 ✓ / V3 ✓
Test Pass Rate: Pending test (see test-prompts.json for details)
Distillation Time: 2026-07-14