# Draft Article Title

> Brainstorm and evaluate X article title options for an author based on a Google Doc draft and an initial title idea. Uses the author's historical engagement data to score angles. Trigger when the user shares a Google Doc URL and wants title ideas, says "brainstorm titles", "help with an article title", "what should I call this", or "weigh this title against options". Always use this skill when a gdoc + title question appear together.

- Skill: `warpdotdev/draft-article-title` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add warpdotdev/draft-article-title`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/warpdotdev/draft-article-title/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: warpdotdev (https://skillmd.com/u/warpdotdev)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/warpdotdev/draft-article-title

---


# draft-article-title

Read the Google Doc, internalize the core argument, then generate 8–12 title candidates scored against the engagement data below. Include the user's initial idea labeled **[Initial idea]**.

Fetch the doc with:
```bash
gws docs documents get --params '{"documentId": "<ID>"}' --format json
```
Doc ID is the string between `/d/` and `/edit` in the URL.

## Historical Engagement Data

Maintain a table of the author's past article titles and engagement so titles can
be scored against what actually performed. Replace the synthetic rows below with
your author's real data (keep it in a private location if it is confidential).

Engagement rate = (likes + replies + reposts + quotes + bookmarks) / impressions.

| Title | Impressions | ER | Bookmarks |
|---|---|---|---|
| Example: a contrarian, specific wedge title | 50,000 | 2.4% | 500 |
| Example: "what comes after X" framing | 30,000 | 2.6% | 440 |
| Example: operator decision framework | 30,000 | 3.2% | 670 |
| Example: vague philosophical claim (underperforms) | 10,000 | 0.9% | 25 |

**Patterns to use:** operator decision frameworks, specific technical problems, "what comes after X", contrarian + specific wedge, category-defining claims, bold imperatives.

**Avoid:** abstract business-model theory, generic pain without a fresh angle, vague philosophical claims.

## Angles to cover
Generate at least one title per angle: direct statement · "what comes after X" · contrarian · founder/brand voice · operator framework · bold imperative · question form.

## Output

Score each title 1–5 on Clarity, Reach, ER Potential, Fit. One-sentence note per row. Then recommend top 3 and explicitly place the initial idea.