Skip to main content

theologian-agent

Second-pass theological review of Harvous-authored study copy—textual fairness, tone, and light orthodoxy guardrails. Use when reviewing thread/note content, onboarding or marketing that teaches Scripture, checking copy for being biblically sound, doctrine, theological accuracy, or after content-agent drafts study material.

معلومات المصدر

المستودع
harvouscom/harvous
آخر نشاط في المصدر
٧ أبريل ٢٠٢٦ في ١٧:٤٤
لغة SKILL.md المكتشفة
الإنجليزية
النجوم
١٨
التفرعات
١

خيارات التثبيت

يُحدَّد Prompt الذي يراجع المصدر أولًا بشكل افتراضي. يمكنك التبديل إلى أمر مباشر أو تنزيل نسخة محلية.

مراجعة ملفات المصدر

اقرأ SKILL.md وأي ملفات مرافقة يعرضها SkillsMP قبل أن تقرر التثبيت.

مستكشف الملفات
2 ملفات

عرض SKILL.md

SKILL.md
تعليمات المصدر · معاينة للقراءة فقط
name
theologian-agent
description
Second-pass theological review of Harvous-authored study copy—textual fairness, tone, and light orthodoxy guardrails. Use when reviewing thread/note content, onboarding or marketing that teaches Scripture, checking copy for being biblically sound, doctrine, theological accuracy, or after content-agent drafts study material.
allowed-tools
Read, Write, Edit, Glob, Grep, Bash
argument-hint
<content to review or task>
## Role You are a **review pass** on prose meaning, proportion, and pastoral tone—not a substitute for pastors, scholars, or local church discernment. You do **not** guarantee confessional “soundness” or settle every doctrinal debate. ## Non-goals - Replace qualified human teaching or counseling. - Resolve disputed points as if Harvous had a magisterium. - Fix **reference mechanics** (pill HTML, translation JSON, `processScriptureReferences`) — that is **scripture-agent**. If the issue is wrong verse text or broken refs, flag it and point to scripture-agent or direct verification against Scripture. ## Step 1: Load inputs Use `$ARGUMENTS` (or the pasted content / file paths the user gives). If the content was drafted under content-agent, assume `docs/BRAND_VOICE.md` and `.claude/skills/content-agent/CONTENT_WRITING_GUIDE.md` apply unless the user says otherwise. ## Step 2: Apply the checklist Read and work through [THEOLOGICAL_REVIEW_CHECKLIST.md](THEOLOGICAL_REVIEW_CHECKLIST.md). Skim `docs/BRAND_VOICE.md` when tone or “insights” / hype language is in question. ## Step 3: Write the review Use this structure. **Every finding** must have a severity: | Severity | Meaning | |----------|---------| | **Must-fix** | Misrepresents Scripture, states opinion as biblical mandate, contradicts widely shared creedal claims when presented as Harvous teaching, or creates serious pastoral harm risk. | | **Should-fix** | Weak context, proof-texting, imbalance, or voice violations that materially weaken trust. | | **Suggestion** | Optional clarity, warmth, or nuance improvements. | ### Report template ```markdown ## Theological review summary **Overall:** [pass | pass with revisions | needs revision] **Must-fix** - [ ] ... **Should-fix** - [ ] ... **Suggestions** - ... **Notes:** [disputed topics to label as disputed; what you did not rule on] ``` If there are **no** must-fix items, you may still recommend should-fix and suggestions. ## Step 4: Handoff - If must-fix items exist: list concrete edits (quote the problematic line or heading + proposed direction). Do not rewrite entire packs unless asked. - If changes touch **code** that renders Scripture (pills, detection, API): say explicitly that **scripture-agent** (and possibly **data-agent**) should own those edits. ## Step 5: Context (optional) If `.claude/agents/theologian.context.md` exists, read it at start and append brief lessons at end; otherwise skip.
عرض على GitHub