X Impact Checker

Analyze X posts for viral potential based on the open-source recommendation algorithm (19-element scoring system).

Scoring System (100 points)

Tier 1: Core Engagement (60 points)

Conversation drivers and strong sharing signals.

Factor

Max

Scoring Guide

Reply Potential

22

22: Direct question/debatable claim, 12: Invites response, 4: Statement only

Retweet Potential

16

16: Actionable insight/surprising fact, 8: Interesting but niche, 0: No share value

Favorite Potential

12

12: Emotionally resonant/personal story, 6: Useful reference, 0: Low appeal

Quote Potential

10

10: Strong opinion inviting commentary, 5: Thought-provoking, 0: No quote value

Tier 2: Extended Engagement (25 points)

Media interactions and sustained attention metrics.

Factor

Max

Scoring Guide

Dwell Time

6

6: Long-form/detailed content, 3: Medium depth, 0: Skimmable

Continuous Dwell Time

4

4: Thread/story arc requiring sustained attention, 2: Medium complexity, 0: Quick read

Click Potential

5

5: Compelling link with clear CTA, 3: Link with context, 1: Bare URL, 0: No link

Photo Expand Potential

4

4: Multiple images/visual storytelling, 2: Single image reference, 0: No visual content

Video View Potential

3

3: Long-form video with hook (>5s), 2: Short clip, 0: No video

Quoted Click Potential

3

3: Bold claim inviting verification, 2: Interesting claim, 0: Self-contained

Tier 3: Relationship Building (15 points)

Author discovery and long-term value signals.

Factor

Max

Scoring Guide

Profile Click

5

5: Creates author curiosity, 3: Shows expertise, 0: Generic voice

Follow Potential

4

4: Demonstrates ongoing value, 2: Shows potential, 0: One-off content

Share Potential

2

2: General sharing value, 1: Limited appeal, 0: No value

Share via DM

2

2: Personal/relatable "send to friend" content, 1: Somewhat relatable, 0: Generic

Share via Copy Link

2

2: Reference/bookmark worthy, 1: Useful but not evergreen, 0: Ephemeral

Penalties (subtract from total)

Risk

Range

Trigger

Not Interested

-5 to -15

Clickbait, irrelevant content

Mute Risk

-5 to -15

Repetitive, annoying patterns

Block Risk

-10 to -25

Offensive, aggressive tone

Report Risk

-15 to -30

Policy violations, spam signals

Grades

Score

Grade

90-100

S (Exceptional)

75-89

A (Strong)

60-74

B (Good)

45-59

C (Average)

30-44

D (Below average)

0-29

F (Low potential)

Output Format

Use emojis throughout the report for better visual clarity and engagement.

Progress Tracking

Use TodoWrite tool to show analysis progress with these tasks:

Analyzing post content

(in_progress → completed)

activeForm: "Analyzing post content"

content: "Analyze post content"

Calculating scores across all elements

(in_progress → completed)

activeForm: "Calculating scores across all elements"

content: "Calculate scores across all elements"

Generating top 5 priority improvements

(in_progress → completed)

activeForm: "Generating top 5 priority improvements"

content: "Generate top 5 priority improvements"

Creating optimized version

(in_progress → completed)

activeForm: "Creating optimized version"

content: "Create optimized version"

Mark each task as completed immediately after finishing that step.

Report Structure

Score

:

🎯 XX/100 (Grade: X)

Breakdown Table

:

| Category | Factor | Score | Max | Assessment |

|----------|--------|-------|-----|------------|

| 💬 Core Engagement | | | 60 | |

| | 💭 Reply Potential | X/22 | 22 | [reason] |

| | 🔄 Retweet Potential | X/16 | 16 | [reason] |

| | ❤️ Favorite Potential | X/12 | 12 | [reason] |

| | 💬 Quote Potential | X/10 | 10 | [reason] |

| ⏱️ Extended Engagement | | | 25 | |

| | 👀 Dwell Time | X/6 | 6 | [reason] |

| | ⏳ Continuous Dwell Time | X/4 | 4 | [reason] |

| | 🔗 Click Potential | X/5 | 5 | [reason] |

| | 🖼️ Photo Expand | X/4 | 4 | [reason] |

| | 🎥 Video View | X/3 | 3 | [reason] |

| | 🔍 Quoted Click | X/3 | 3 | [reason] |

| 🤝 Relationship Building | | | 15 | |

| | 👤 Profile Click | X/5 | 5 | [reason] |

| | ➕ Follow Potential | X/4 | 4 | [reason] |

| | 📤 Share Potential | X/2 | 2 | [reason] |

| | 💌 Share via DM | X/2 | 2 | [reason] |

| | 📋 Share via Link | X/2 | 2 | [reason] |

| ⚠️ Negative Signals | | | | |

| | 😐 Not Interested Risk | -X | 0 to -15 | [reason] |

| | 🔇 Mute Risk | -X | 0 to -15 | [reason] |

| | 🚫 Block Risk | -X | 0 to -25 | [reason] |

| | 🚨 Report Risk | -X | 0 to -30 | [reason] |

| 🏆 TOTAL | | XX/100 | | Grade: X |

📈 Top 5 Priority Improvements

Specific, actionable suggestions across different categories

Use emojis like ✅, 💡, 🎯 to highlight key improvements

✨ Optimized Version

Rewritten post with improvements applied (in original language)

Detailed Scoring Criteria & Improvement Strategies

Tier 1: Core Engagement

Reply Potential (22 points)

Evaluation Criteria:

Direct questions: "What do you think?", "How would you solve this?"

Debatable claims: "X is better than Y"

Opinion invitations: "Agree or disagree?"

Open-ended prompts

Controversial but thoughtful statements

Improvement Strategies:

❌ Bad: "Just shipped a new feature."

⚠️ Better: "Just shipped a new feature. Thoughts?"

✅ Best: "Should features ship fast but buggy, or slow but stable? We chose speed—was it the right call?"

Retweet Potential (16 points)

Evaluation Criteria:

Actionable insights: "Here's how..."

Surprising facts: "X% of developers don't know..."

Numbered lists: "3 ways to...", "10 lessons from..."

Data-driven content

Shareable takeaways

Universal truths

Improvement Strategies:

❌ Bad: "I learned something today."

⚠️ Better: "I learned React hooks can reduce bundle size by 30%."

✅ Best: "🧵 3 React patterns that cut my bundle size by 30%:\n\n1. Lazy loading hooks\n2. Code splitting by route\n3. Tree-shaking unused exports"

Favorite Potential (12 points)

Evaluation Criteria:

Emotional resonance: joy, frustration, triumph

Personal stories: "When I was..."

Relatable moments: "We've all been there..."

Inspirational content

Vulnerability and authenticity

Useful references worth saving

Improvement Strategies:

❌ Bad: "Debugging is hard."

⚠️ Better: "Spent 3 hours debugging a typo."

✅ Best: "Spent 3 hours debugging a production issue. The fix? A missing semicolon I added during 'quick cleanup' at 2am. Never touching working code past midnight again 😅"

Quote Potential (10 points)

Evaluation Criteria:

Strong opinions: "X is dead", "Y is overrated"

Challenges conventional wisdom

Invites commentary and counter-arguments

Takes clear stance on controversial topics

Thought-provoking perspectives

Improvement Strategies:

❌ Bad: "TypeScript is useful."

⚠️ Better: "TypeScript prevents bugs."

✅ Best: "TypeScript's biggest value isn't catching bugs—it's documentation. The type errors are just a bonus. Fight me."

Tier 2: Extended Engagement

Dwell Time (6 points)

Evaluation Criteria:

Long-form content requiring reading time

Detailed explanations with examples

Technical depth

Multi-paragraph structure

Educational content

Improvement Strategies:

Add concrete examples: "For instance, when building X..."

Include numbers and data: "This reduced latency from 200ms to 50ms"

Structure with clear sections

Continuous Dwell Time (4 points)

Evaluation Criteria:

Thread indicators: "🧵", "Thread:", "1/", numbered series

Narrative structure: beginning, middle, end

Complexity requiring re-reading

Educational depth with layers

Story arcs that unfold

"And then..." structures

Difference from Dwell Time:

Dwell Time

Initial reading duration (how long to read once)

Continuous Dwell Time

Sustained attention (re-reading, contemplation, multi-part consumption)

Improvement Strategies:

❌ Bad: "Here's how I built X. [long explanation]"

⚠️ Better: "🧵 How I built X in 30 days"

✅ Best: "🧵 How I went from idea to $10k MRR in 30 days (1/8)\n\nDay 1-7: Validation\nDays 8-14: MVP\nDays 15-30: Launch\n\nHere's what nobody tells you..."

Click Potential (5 points)

Evaluation Criteria:

Link presence and context quality

Call-to-action strength: "Read more", "Discover", "Learn how"

Preview/teaser effectiveness

Curiosity gap creation: "The results were shocking..."

Clear value proposition

Improvement Strategies:

❌ Bad: "

https://example.com/article

"

⚠️ Better: "Read more here: [link]"

✅ Best: "How I 10xed revenue in 3 months (full breakdown with screenshots): [link]"

Photo Expand Potential (4 points)

Evaluation Criteria:

Image markers: [photo], [image], "pic.twitter.com"

Visual language: "see", "look", "view", "check this out"

Emojis suggesting visuals: 📸, 🎨, 👀, 📷, 🖼️

Before/after comparisons

Multiple image storytelling: "Swipe through..."

Visual evidence: "Here's proof 👇"

Improvement Strategies:

❌ Bad: "My dashboard looks great now."

⚠️ Better: "Check out my new dashboard design."

✅ Best: "Before/after of my analytics dashboard redesign 👇\n\nWent from cluttered mess to clean insights in 2 days.\n\n[visual indicators suggest images present]"

Video View Potential (3 points)

Evaluation Criteria:

Video markers: [video], "▶️", "watch", "tutorial", "demo"

Duration hints: "2-min", "quick demo", "full walkthrough"

Content preview describing what viewers will see

Timestamp highlights: "Skip to 1:30 for..."

Hook/teaser: "Wait for the ending..."

VQV Eligibility (Conditional):

Full scoring (3 points) applies only if video appears to be >5 seconds (long-form).

Inferred from: "full tutorial", "in-depth", "complete guide" vs "quick clip", "snippet"

Improvement Strategies:

❌ Bad: "Made a video."

⚠️ Better: "Watch my new tutorial ▶️"

✅ Best: "Full 8-minute breakdown: How to build this UI in Next.js ▶️\n\n0:00 Setup\n2:15 Components\n5:30 Animations\n\nBest part at 6:45"

Quoted Click Potential (3 points)

Evaluation Criteria:

Provocative but incomplete statements

Statistics or claims needing verification

Hot takes inviting source investigation: "80% of startups fail because..."

"Wait, what?" factor creating curiosity

Source credibility questions

Bold claims: "This changes everything"

Improvement Strategies:

❌ Bad: "Read this interesting study about developer productivity."

⚠️ Better: "New study shows remote developers are 20% more productive."

✅ Best: "New Stanford study: Remote developers write 35% more code but with 50% fewer bugs.\n\nThis destroys the 'office collaboration' myth."

Tier 3: Relationship Building

Profile Click (5 points)

Evaluation Criteria:

Creates author curiosity: "Who is this person?"

Demonstrates expertise: "I built X at Y company"

Shows unique perspective or background

Credibility signals: credentials, experience

Intriguing bio-worthy content

Improvement Strategies:

❌ Bad: "I think React is good."

⚠️ Better: "After 5 years with React, I think it's good."

✅ Best: "After architecting React apps for Airbnb, Netflix, and 50+ startups, here's what I wish I knew on day one:"

Follow Potential (4 points)

Evaluation Criteria:

Demonstrates ongoing value: "I ship weekly tutorials on..."

Shows consistent expertise

Promises future content: "More on this tomorrow"

Establishes content cadence

Creates expectation of quality

Improvement Strategies:

❌ Bad: "Here's a React tip."

⚠️ Better: "Here's a React tip. I post these daily."

✅ Best: "React tip #47: [insight]\n\nI break down advanced React patterns every Monday. Following along? Tomorrow's is about suspense boundaries."

Share Potential (2 points)

Evaluation Criteria:

General sharing value to broader audience

Universal relevance

Broad appeal across communities

Improvement Strategies:

Make universally relevant, not niche-specific

Focus on common problems everyone faces

Share via DM (2 points)

Evaluation Criteria:

Personal relevance: "Tag someone who...", "Send this to..."

Inside jokes or shared experiences

Emotional resonance for 1-on-1 sharing: "This is so you 😂"

Relatable scenarios: "We all have that friend..."

"You need to see this" quality

Improvement Strategies:

❌ Bad: "Debugging is frustrating."

⚠️ Better: "Debugging production issues is stressful."

✅ Best: "Tag your developer friend who 'just quickly fixes' production on Friday at 5pm and breaks everything 😂"

Share via Copy Link (2 points)

Evaluation Criteria:

Reference value: guides, lists, frameworks, cheatsheets

Evergreen quality (not time-sensitive)

Professional sharing context (Slack, email, bookmarks)

"Save this" or "Bookmark" language

Educational/tutorial content

Resource library worthy

Improvement Strategies:

❌ Bad: "Here are some Git commands I use."

⚠️ Better: "Useful Git commands for daily work."

✅ Best: "📌 Bookmark this: 15 Git commands that saved me 100+ hours this year\n\n[Well-structured list with examples]\n\nPrint this and keep it next to your monitor."

Score Normalization

The algorithm applies normalization to balance positive and negative signals:

Final Score = Base Score (0-100) + Penalties (-75 to 0)

Normalized Score = max(0, min(100, Final Score))

Penalty Capping:

Total penalties ≤ -20: Applied at full weight

Total penalties > -20: Gradual dampening begins

Total penalties > -75: Hard cap at -75 to prevent over-penalization

This prevents a single negative signal from completely dominating the score while maintaining their importance in the algorithm.

Text Analysis Limitations

This skill performs heuristic text-based analysis, not ML prediction.

What This Skill Cannot Detect

Missing Metadata:

Actual media presence (photos, videos)

Real video duration or quality

Actual click-through rates

True engagement metrics

Author reputation/follower count

Tweet timestamps or virality history

Cannot Access:

Phoenix ML model predictions

User interaction history

Network graph relationships

Real-time engagement signals

What This Skill Infers From

Text-Based Heuristics:

Language patterns and structure

Content formatting (threads, lists, etc.)

Emotional tone and style

Visual indicators (emojis, markdown)

Call-to-action strength

Question vs. statement structure

Scoring Approach:

Conservative

Unknown elements get baseline scores

Pattern-Based

Detects language cues (e.g., 📸 for photos, 🧵 for threads)

Optimization-Focused

Best used for pre-publishing content improvement Best Use Case Pre-publishing optimization to maximize engagement potential, not post-hoc analytics or prediction of actual engagement numbers. Language Handling Detect input language. Respond in same language. Keep optimized version in original language. Bilingual Display for Category and Factor Names When input is in Japanese: Display Category and Factor names as: 日本語訳（English Original） Examples: Category: コアエンゲージメント（Core Engagement） Factor: 返信潜在力（Reply Potential） Factor: リツイート潜在力（Retweet Potential） When input is in English: Display Category and Factor names in English only Examples: Category: Core Engagement Factor: Reply Potential Japanese translations with emojis for reference: 💬 Core Engagement → コアエンゲージメント ⏱️ Extended Engagement → 拡張エンゲージメント 🤝 Relationship Building → 関係構築 ⚠️ Negative Signals → ネガティブシグナル 💭 Reply Potential → 返信潜在力 🔄 Retweet Potential → リツイート潜在力 ❤️ Favorite Potential → いいね潜在力 💬 Quote Potential → 引用潜在力 👀 Dwell Time → 滞在時間 ⏳ Continuous Dwell Time → 継続滞在時間 🔗 Click Potential → クリック潜在力 🖼️ Photo Expand → 写真展開潜在力 🎥 Video View → 動画視聴潜在力 🔍 Quoted Click → 引用クリック潜在力 👤 Profile Click → プロフィールクリック ➕ Follow Potential → フォロー潜在力 📤 Share Potential → 共有潜在力 💌 Share via DM → DM経由共有 📋 Share via Link → リンクコピー共有 😐 Not Interested Risk → 興味なしリスク 🔇 Mute Risk → ミュートリスク 🚫 Block Risk → ブロックリスク 🚨 Report Risk → 報告リスク Algorithm Reference See references/algorithm-weights.md for complete weight details from X's open-source algorithm (19-element system).