What does this skill do, and when should you use it?
This is an example Agent Skill used when testing the RSS golden build. It documents an RSS 2.0 feed called Example Engineering Blog with 4 articles, 2 authors, and 55 tags. The content includes feed metadata, article details, aggregate statistics, and categorized reference-file navigation. It is useful for validating generated feed artifacts, but it is not a general-purpose RSS scraper.
Records the example feed title, type, website, language, description, generator, and rights; lists article titles, publication dates, authors, summaries, and links; summarizes categories, authors, tags, and date range; and points to category-specific reference files plus references/index.md.
- Maintainers testing Skill Seeker's RSS golden-build output can compare generated feed metadata against this fixed fixture.
- Engineers can verify truncation behavior for an article summary exceeding the 200-character threshold.
- Test authors can exercise long feed descriptions, special-character tags, and an article without a category.
- Reviewers can check consistency between article listings, author counts, category counts, and reference navigation.
How do you install this skill?
- This file appears to be a golden-test fixture, not a complete end-user skill; do not represent it as a verified RSS converter.
- All sources use example.com sample data, so real scraping quality, provenance, and content completeness are unconfirmed.
- The skill does not define network access, privacy, credential, failure-recovery, or user-confirmation policies; those boundaries should be documented before real-data use.
The skill is located at tests/golden/phase2/rss/SKILL.md in the Skill_Seekers repository. The README documents collection installation with pip install skill-seekers, but it does not document a separate installation or registration procedure for this test skill.
tmp="$(mktemp -d)"
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/yusufkaraaslan/Skill_Seekers.git "$tmp"
mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills
cp -R "$tmp/tests/golden/phase2/rss" ~/.claude/skills/
rm -rf "$tmp"Generated from the source repository and skill path; it copies only this skill's folder. If the author's install steps above differ, follow those first. To scope it to one project, replace ~/.claude/skills with that project's .claude/skills.
How do you use this skill?
Once installed, send your agent any of these to trigger it:
- check the Example Engineering Blog article, author, and tag data
- validate RSS golden-build truncation and navigation output.
Invoke it when testing the RSS golden build. Example requests include “check the Example Engineering Blog article, author, and tag data” or “validate RSS golden-build truncation and navigation output.” The source does not provide a standalone CLI command or execution script for this skill.
What are this skill's strengths and limitations?
- Covers common feed-output fields including metadata, articles, authors, tags, statistics, and navigation.
- Includes deliberate edge cases such as long descriptions, long summaries, special-character tags, and an uncategorized article.
- Provides a stable, narrowly scoped fixture for generated-output comparisons.
- It is a test fixture with example content, not a real engineering blog.
- Its 4-article sample and example.com source do not establish compatibility with arbitrary RSS or Atom feeds.
- No standalone installation, configuration, or execution instructions are provided.
- The README's 3,700+ test count describes the repository collection and is not evidence of tests specific to this skill.
How does this skill compare with similar options?
Side by side with related skills; every score comes from the same FSRS standard.
| Skill | FS score | Stars | Last updated | License |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RSS Engineering Blog Reference this page | 36 · Not recommended | ★ 15k | 25d ago | MIT |
| Xberg Format-Specific Extraction Workflows | 66 · Recommended | ★ 9.4k | 11d ago | MIT |
| TDD Guard | 61 · Recommended | ★ 2.4k | 13d ago | MIT |
| RenderCV Testing Context | 61 · Recommended | ★ 18k | 7mo ago | MIT |
| cmux Testing Skill | 60 · Recommended | ★ 28k | 11d ago | NOASSERTION |
How did FollowSkills review this skill?
The skill only presents example RSS content, article links, and local reference files; it shows no evident execution, write, credential-access, or exfiltration behavior. However, it does not disclose data flow, privacy handling, user confirmation, rollback, or source authenticity, and it relies on example.com placeholders, so points are deducted.
The SKILL.md and category reference files are largely consistent on articles, authors, dates, and links, and they expose cases such as summary truncation, missing categories, and special-character tags. This is still a static generated fixture with no runtime requirements, failure feedback, or reproducible execution evidence, so the score is conservatively limited.
The scenario is explicit—testing the RSS golden build—but the scope is narrow. The artifact is an English example and lacks real-user trigger conditions, an output contract, declared non-fit ranges, or Chinese-environment guidance, so points are deducted.
The information architecture is readable, with overview, articles, authors, tags, statistics, navigation, and organized references. The front matter is minimal, and there are no installation notes, versioning, changelog, maintenance owner, limitation disclosure, or troubleshooting guidance; the license is only supplied by repository context, so points are deducted.
As an RSS golden fixture, it supplies a directly comparable structure and covers truncation, missing dates, missing authors, uncategorized content, and special characters. It is not an operational RSS-conversion skill, however, and the files alone do not establish directly usable conversion results, so the static score remains limited.
Article metadata, category indexes, and reference files provide some auditable internal correspondence. The example.com material is not meaningful real-source corroboration, and the skill contains no test commands, assertions, CI coverage, or third-party execution evidence, so only limited credit is warranted.
Open a dimension to read why it scored that way
Evidence confidence：Low — Mostly static review, author material or a limited demo; useful for discovery, not high-risk decisions.
See the full review method →