Complete document writing workflow with four stages: brainstorming → planning → execution → review. Use when user wants to write articles, blog posts, technical docs, or any long-form content.

2026-03-1541

brainstorming

binbinao/document-superpowers

You MUST use this before any writing work - creating blog posts, technical documentation, reports, or any content. Explores topic intent, audience, and purpose before writing.

2026-03-0241

executing-article-plan

binbinao/document-superpowers

Executes approved article plan section by section with validation checkpoints. Batch writing mode with human review.

2026-03-0241

subagent-driven-writing

binbinao/document-superpowers

Fast iterative writing using fresh subagent per section with two-stage review. Alternative to batch execution.

2026-03-0241

writing-article-plan

binbinao/document-superpowers

Use when you have an approved topic brief. Creates detailed article outline with section structure, key points, word counts, and research needs before writing.

2026-03-0241

name	reviewing-article
description	Multi-pass article review covering logic, evidence, flow, and polish. Systematic quality assurance before publication.

Reviewing Articles

Overview

Systematic multi-pass review process to ensure article quality. Each pass focuses on one dimension, making issues easier to spot and fix.

Announce at start: "I'm using the reviewing-article skill for systematic review."

Context: You should have a complete draft from executing-article-plan.

Save outputs to:

Review log: docs/writing/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-review.md
Final article: docs/writing/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-final.md

Four-Pass Review Process

digraph review {
    "Read full draft" [shape=box];
    "Pass 1: Logic" [shape=box];
    "Pass 2: Evidence" [shape=box];
    "Pass 3: Flow" [shape=box];
    "Pass 4: Polish" [shape=box];
    "Generate review log" [shape=box];
    "Apply fixes" [shape=box];
    "Save final article" [shape=doublecircle];

    "Read full draft" -> "Pass 1: Logic";
    "Pass 1: Logic" -> "Pass 2: Evidence";
    "Pass 2: Evidence" -> "Pass 3: Flow";
    "Pass 3: Flow" -> "Pass 4: Polish";
    "Pass 4: Polish" -> "Generate review log";
    "Generate review log" -> "Apply fixes";
    "Apply fixes" -> "Save final article";
}

Pass 1: Logic Check

Focus: Is the argument coherent and sound?

Questions to ask:

Does the introduction clearly state the core message?
Does each section support the core message?
Do conclusions follow logically from premises?
Are there any logical fallacies?
Are there contradictions between sections?
Does the conclusion tie everything together?

Common issues:

Thesis buried or unclear
Sections don't support main argument
Circular reasoning
Non-sequiturs
Contradictory claims

Log format:

### Pass 1: Logic Check

**Issues Found:**

**[CRITICAL]** Section 3, paragraph 2
- **Issue:** Conclusion doesn't follow from premise
- **Current:** "X is true, therefore Y must be false"
- **Problem:** X and Y aren't mutually exclusive
- **Fix:** Revise to show relationship between X and Y

**[MINOR]** Introduction
- **Issue:** Core message not explicit enough
- **Fix:** Add clear thesis statement at end of intro

**Strengths:**
- Section 2 builds argument methodically
- Transitions between sections are logical

Pass 2: Evidence Check

Focus: Are claims properly supported?

Questions to ask:

Does every claim have supporting evidence?
Are sources credible and recent?
Are statistics used correctly?
Are examples relevant and compelling?
Are quotes accurate and in context?
Is the evidence sufficient for the claim?

Common issues:

Unsupported assertions
Outdated statistics
Cherry-picked data
Misused quotes
Weak examples
Missing citations

Log format:

### Pass 2: Evidence Check

**Issues Found:**

**[CRITICAL]** Section 2, paragraph 3
- **Issue:** Statistic lacks source
- **Current:** "75% of users prefer..."
- **Problem:** No citation provided
- **Fix:** Add source or remove claim

**[MODERATE]** Section 4
- **Issue:** Example doesn't support point
- **Current:** Using smartphone example to illustrate enterprise software point
- **Fix:** Find relevant B2B example

**Evidence Gaps:**
- [ ] Section 1 needs concrete example of problem
- [ ] Section 3 claim about ROI needs data

**Strengths:**
- Section 2 uses case study effectively
- Research throughout is well-integrated

Pass 3: Flow Check

Focus: Does the article read smoothly?

Questions to ask:

Do paragraphs flow within sections?
Are transitions between sections smooth?
Is pacing appropriate? (not rushed/dragging)
Do sentence lengths vary?
Is paragraph length appropriate? (2-4 sentences)
Does the reading experience feel natural?

Common issues:

Abrupt topic changes
Repetitive sentence structures
Overly long paragraphs
Missing transitions
Pacing issues (too slow or too fast)

Log format:

### Pass 3: Flow Check

**Issues Found:**

**[MODERATE]** Section 2 → Section 3 transition
- **Issue:** Jarring topic shift
- **Current:** Section 2 ends on implementation, Section 3 starts on strategy
- **Fix:** Add transition sentence bridging tactical → strategic

**[MINOR]** Section 1, paragraphs 2-5
- **Issue:** All paragraphs same length (3 sentences, similar structure)
- **Fix:** Vary paragraph length and structure

**Pacing Notes:**
- Introduction moves too slowly (3 paragraphs before thesis)
- Section 3 rushes through important concepts
- Conclusion feels abrupt

**Strengths:**
- Overall arc is clear
- Section 2 has excellent paragraph flow

Pass 4: Polish

Focus: Grammar, spelling, formatting, style

Questions to ask:

Any grammar/spelling errors?
Is formatting consistent? (headers, lists, emphasis)
Is tone consistent throughout?
Are there unnecessary words? (very, really, just)
Active voice used where appropriate?
Are sentences clear and concise?

Common issues:

Typos and grammar errors
Inconsistent formatting
Passive voice overuse
Wordy sentences
Filler words
Style inconsistencies

Log format:

### Pass 4: Polish

**Issues Found:**

**[MINOR]** Throughout
- 12 instances of passive voice (see marked locations)
- Inconsistent use of Oxford comma
- "Very" used 8 times (remove or strengthen word)

**Formatting:**
- Section headers: inconsistent capitalization
- Lists: mix of periods and no periods
- Code blocks: need consistent syntax highlighting

**Word Count:**
- Current: 1247 words
- Target: 1200 words
- Overrun: 47 words (4%)
- Action: Acceptable, or trim in conclusion

**Strengths:**
- Clean, professional language
- Good use of subheaders for scannability
- Technical terms explained clearly

Review Log Template

# [Article Title] - Review Log

**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Reviewer:** [Your name/role]
**Draft Version:** YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-draft.md
**Review Duration:** [time spent]

---

## Executive Summary

**Overall Assessment:** [Excellent/Good/Needs Work/Major Revision Needed]

**Critical Issues:** [count]
**Moderate Issues:** [count]
**Minor Issues:** [count]

**Estimated Fix Time:** [hours/minutes]

**Recommendation:** [Ready to publish / Needs minor fixes / Needs revision / Needs rewrite]

---

## Pass 1: Logic Check
[Details...]

## Pass 2: Evidence Check
[Details...]

## Pass 3: Flow Check
[Details...]

## Pass 4: Polish
[Details...]

---

## Priority Fix List

### Must Fix Before Publishing
1. [Issue with location and fix]
2. [Issue with location and fix]

### Should Fix (Improves Quality)
1. [Issue with location and fix]
2. [Issue with location and fix]

### Nice to Have (Optional)
1. [Issue with location and fix]

---

## Strengths to Preserve

- [What works well - don't change these]
- [Particularly effective sections/arguments]

---

## Final Checklist

- [ ] All critical issues fixed
- [ ] All moderate issues addressed or documented as accepted
- [ ] Word count within acceptable range
- [ ] Formatting consistent
- [ ] Links/references verified
- [ ] Read-through for final polish

Applying Fixes

After generating review log:

Present review summary to user
For each critical issue:
- Show current text
- Explain problem
- Propose fix
- Get approval
Batch minor/moderate fixes (unless user wants granular control)
Make changes to draft
Save as final version

Final Article Format

---
title: [Article Title]
date: YYYY-MM-DD
status: final
word_count: XXXX
reviewed: true
review_date: YYYY-MM-DD
---

# [Article Title]

[Final polished content...]

---

## Metadata

- **Word Count:** XXXX
- **Reading Time:** ~X minutes
- **Target Audience:** [from brief]
- **Core Message:** [one sentence]
- **Published:** [where/when]

Review Quality Standards

Good review:

Finds real issues, not nitpicks
Categorizes by severity accurately
Provides actionable fixes
Preserves what works well
Balances critique with recognition

Warning signs:

Only surface-level issues found
Contradictory feedback
Vague "make it better" notes
Excessive nitpicking
Missing critical logic flaws

Completion

After saving final article:

**"Review complete! 📝

Review Summary:

Critical issues: [X] → Fixed
Moderate issues: [X] → Fixed
Minor issues: [X] → Fixed

Final article saved to: docs/writing/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-final.md Review log saved to: docs/writing/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-review.md

Article stats:

Word count: XXXX
Reading time: ~X minutes
Status: Ready for publication

Would you like me to:

Export to specific format (Medium, WordPress, etc.)
Generate social media snippets
Create summary/abstract
Something else"**

Key Principles

Four separate passes - Don't mix concerns
Severity matters - Critical blocks publication, minor doesn't
Document everything - Review log is valuable reference
Fix systematically - Don't ad-hoc it
Preserve strengths - Don't over-edit what works
Evidence-based critique - Point to specific issues, not feelings