pre-publish-check

name	pre-publish-check
description	Final quality gate before publishing a blog post. Checks tone/voice match, conciseness, thesis connectivity, evidence backing, structural strength, links, frontmatter, and readability. Use after /draft-post iteration is complete. Replaces /tone-check.
argument-hint	<path-to-post>
allowed-tools	Bash, Read, Write, Edit, WebFetch, AskUserQuestion

Pre-Publish Check

Final quality gate before publishing. Run this after the draft is done and you're ready to publish.

Copy this checklist and track progress:

Pre-Publish Check:
- [ ] Pass 1: Tone & voice match
- [ ] Pass 2: Conciseness audit
- [ ] Pass 3: Thesis connectivity
- [ ] Pass 4: Evidence audit
- [ ] Pass 5: Opening & closing strength
- [ ] Pass 6: Link & frontmatter check
- [ ] Pass 7: Readability scan
- [ ] Report findings to user

Setup

Read the post file provided as argument. Also read:

• .claude/skills/draft-post/AUTHOR_PROFILE.md for voice reference
• 2-3 of Ben's published essays from src/content/writing/ (prefer essays, not notes — check type: essay in frontmatter) for tone comparison

Pass 1: Tone & Voice Match

Read AI_MARKERS.md (in this skill's directory) for the full reference checklist. Compare the draft against Ben's published essays.

AI writing marker scan (from AI_MARKERS.md):

1. Ctrl+F for all Tier 1 vocabulary (delve, tapestry, realm, pivotal, etc.) - any hit is a flag
2. Check for Tier 2 vocabulary in clusters (3+ in one section = flag)
3. Search for "not X, it's Y" / "not only...but also" negative parallelism constructions - flag multiples
4. Count em-dashes per 1000 words. Compare against Ben's published baseline (Ben uses - not —; his baseline is ~9-10 dashes per 1000 words). Flag if significantly above
5. Check for rule-of-three (tricolon) lists, especially with near-synonyms - flag clusters
6. Check for bold-header bullet list formatting (each item = Bold: description) - convert to narrative
7. Check for elegant variation / copula avoidance ("serves as", "stands as", "represents a")
8. Check for throat-clearing openers, sycophantic patterns, false balance templates, vague attributions, and canned significance phrases (see AI_MARKERS.md for full lists)
9. Check for uniform paragraph structure (topic sentence + support + summary, repeated)
10. Check for sandwich structure on opinions (positive, concern, reassurance - never just the concern)
11. Flag paragraphs starting with "So,", "Now,", "Look,"

Voice mismatch detection:

• Compare sentence length standard deviation against published essays (AI text has lower variance)
• Check for contractions (Ben uses them consistently - their absence signals AI drift)
• Check for "I think" usage (Ben uses it deliberately to mark opinion vs. fact - absence or overuse both signal problems)
• Rhetorical questions (Ben uses them occasionally - zero or too many is a flag)
• Authority claims should reference specific experience, not generic credibility ("Experts argue..." is an AI tell)
• Check for genuine voice quirks (sentence fragments, intentional rule-breaking) - their total absence is a flag

Output: List each flagged instance with line number, the phrase, and a suggested fix.

Pass 2: Conciseness Audit

Sentence level

• Flag sentences over 30 words (Ben's style allows slightly longer than typical web writing, but 30+ is a warning)
• Flag 3+ consecutive sentences of similar length (monotonous rhythm)
• Flag filler phrases: "in order to" → "to", "due to the fact that" → "because", "has the ability to" → "can", "it is important to note that" → cut, "the reason why is that" → "because", "in the event that" → "if", "a large number of" → "many"
• Flag hedge words that aren't earning their keep: "very", "really", "quite", "rather", "somewhat", "just", "actually", "basically"
• Flag nominalizations where a verb would be stronger: "made a decision" → "decided", "gave consideration to" → "considered"
• Flag "There is/are..." and "It is...that..." constructions — rewrite with a real subject

Paragraph level

• Flag paragraphs over 5 sentences
• Flag paragraphs that make two distinct points (should be split)

Section level

• Flag sections over 350 words without a subheading break
• Flag any section where the first sentence doesn't carry the point (readers scan first lines)

Output: List each flag with line number, the text, and a suggested tighter version.

Pass 3: Thesis Connectivity

State the thesis in one sentence (from the post itself or inferred).

For each section and each paragraph, ask: Does this advance the thesis? Apply these checks:

• If you can delete a paragraph and the argument still holds, flag it as cuttable
• If a paragraph's connection to the thesis requires the reader to make an inferential leap, flag it and suggest making the connection explicit
• If two sections make the same point with different evidence, flag the weaker one for merging
• If a section introduces a tangent that isn't resolved, flag it

Output: For each flag, state: the section/paragraph, why it's disconnected, and whether to cut, merge, or add a connecting sentence.

Pass 4: Evidence Audit

For each factual claim in the post:

• Supported: Has a linked source, named example, or specific personal experience → mark as good
• Opinion (marked): Author flags it with "I think" or equivalent → mark as good
• Unsupported: Stated as fact but no source or experience → flag it

Also check:

• Are any sources cited twice for different claims? (each point should stand on its own evidence)
• Are any sources stale? (check dates — anything older than 18 months may need a freshness note)
• Do block quotes have attribution?

Output: Table of claims, their evidence status, and flags.

Pass 5: Opening & Closing Strength

Opening (first 3 paragraphs):

• Does the first sentence hook? (Stakes a position, tells a story, or provokes — not throat-clearing)
• By paragraph 3, does the reader know what the post is about and why they should care?
• Is there a clear "turn" — the moment the post shifts from setup to argument?

Closing (last 2 paragraphs):

• Does it end with a forward-looking bet or actionable challenge?
• Does it summarize? (If yes, flag — Ben's posts don't summarize)
• Does the last sentence land? Read it in isolation — does it work as a standalone statement?

Output: Assessment of opening hook strength, closing strength, and specific suggestions if either is weak.

Pass 6: Link & Frontmatter Check

Links:

• Find all markdown links in the post
• Check for placeholder links (TBD, TODO, #, empty href)
• Attempt to fetch each URL with WebFetch to verify it resolves (just check for 200/redirect, don't analyze content)
• Flag any broken or placeholder links

Frontmatter:

• date — is it today or a reasonable publish date?
• type — should be "essay" for full posts
• tags — are they present and relevant?
• description — is it a hook (good) or a summary (bad)? Should make someone want to click, not tell them what they'll read
• draft — should be true until user explicitly approves

Output: List of link issues and frontmatter issues.

Pass 7: Readability Scan

• Flag jargon or acronyms not defined on first use (exception: terms the target audience universally knows, like PM, AI, PR)
• Flag inside-baseball references that assume the reader has read Ben's prior posts (each post should stand alone — brief context is fine, but don't require prior reading)
• Estimate reading time (assume 250 words/minute for online reading) — flag if over 10 minutes
• Check that bold text is used for emphasis on key phrases, not for entire sentences
• Check that H2 headers appear every 200-350 words (wall-of-text detection)

Output: List of readability flags with suggestions.

Report

Present findings organized by severity:

Must fix — Broken links, placeholder URLs, unsupported factual claims, AI-typical phrases, paragraphs disconnected from thesis

Should fix — Verbose sentences, monotonous rhythm, weak opening/closing, missing evidence, excessive sections

Consider — Minor conciseness improvements, readability polish, frontmatter tweaks

For each finding, include: what the issue is, where it is (line number or quote), and a specific suggested fix.

After presenting, ask the user which fixes to apply. Apply approved changes and re-verify the affected checks.

Error Handling

Situation	Action
Post file not found	Ask user for the correct path
AUTHOR_PROFILE.md not found	Skip voice comparison against profile, note reduced confidence in tone check
No published essays found for comparison	Skip comparative tone analysis, rely only on the voice profile rules
URL check fails (timeout/network)	Note as "unverifiable" rather than "broken"