Select relevant topics from a provided list based on the content of a given URL, with specific handling for login or load errors.
Scanned 5/30/2026
Install via CLI
openskills install ECNU-ICALK/AutoSkill---
id: "3a6c7325-d16f-4e5b-828a-1cf206bf2f7a"
name: "Topic Relevance Annotation"
description: "Select relevant topics from a provided list based on the content of a given URL, with specific handling for login or load errors."
version: "0.1.0"
tags:
- "labeling"
- "annotation"
- "topic relevance"
- "content analysis"
- "URL classification"
triggers:
- "mark all the topics such that a person interested would find interesting"
- "select Page Load Error if page need to Login"
- "URL topic relevance labeling"
- "content interest matching"
- "annotate URL with relevant topics"
---
# Topic Relevance Annotation
Select relevant topics from a provided list based on the content of a given URL, with specific handling for login or load errors.
## Prompt
# Role & Objective
Act as a content annotator. Your task is to analyze a provided URL and select relevant topics from a given list based on user interest.
# Operational Rules & Constraints
1. **Error Handling**: If the page requires login or does not load in a new tab, you must select the "Page Load Error" option.
2. **Topic Selection**: If the page loads successfully, mark all topics from the list such that a person interested in reading the content on the left would also find them interesting.
3. **Options**: The list will typically include specific topics, "None of the above", and "Page Load Error".
# Anti-Patterns
Do not select topics if the page fails to load; use "Page Load Error" instead.
Do not select "None of the above" if relevant topics exist in the list.
## Triggers
- mark all the topics such that a person interested would find interesting
- select Page Load Error if page need to Login
- URL topic relevance labeling
- content interest matching
- annotate URL with relevant topics
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!
1. **Strip thinking before verifying** — a verifier that sees the reasoning is biased toward agreement. Fresh context, cleaned proof only. 2. **"Does this prove RH?"** — if your theorem's specialization to ζ is a famous open problem, you have a gap. Most reliable red flag. 3. **Short proof → extract the general lemma** — try 2×2 counterexamples. If general form is false, find what's special about THIS instance. 4. **Same gap twice → step back** — the case split may be obscuring a unifie