| name | portfolio-review |
| description | Audit publishable portfolio copy, content completeness, claims, links, canonicals, redirects, images, social metadata, accessibility, and rendered presentation. Use for every public content addition or meaningful edit before it is considered ready for review or publication. |
Portfolio review
Treat review as a bounded evidence loop, not a vibe check. Read the portfolio writing, design, and content skills before reviewing their surfaces.
Before making or reviewing a material change, define success across three dimensions: the reader-visible outcome, fidelity to the writing/design rules, and the complexity or weight added to achieve it. Grade the result, not the implementation path. Use deterministic checks for structural requirements, a separate qualitative review for taste, and negative cases for things that must stay absent. Turn a real failure or user correction into the smallest durable regression check.
1. Inventory the change
- Run
git status --short before work and inspect the focused diff.
- List every changed public claim, link, canonical or alias, image, alt string, and metadata field.
- Identify the intended reader action, the misconception or tension used by the title/social copy, and the one idea each visual must communicate.
- Use
docs/PORTFOLIO_EVIDENCE_LEDGER.md for existing claims. Add durable new evidence there when a material claim will recur.
2. Audit copy and claims
- Lead with the outcome and concrete work. Cut throat-clearing, generic summaries, repeated conclusions, and unsupported superlatives.
- Check every number, date range, attribution, role, causal statement, and current product fact against a primary source, checked-in artifact, or Ryan-approved internal evidence.
- Apply the metric taste rule: real numbers are fine for public/verifiable stats, prior-company results, and aged or long-public current-employer work; recent internal current-employer usage or growth figures (Google Maps Platform users, API engagement) must use qualitative, understated framing, never a precise percentage.
- Distinguish observed correlation from causation. Put unrelated evidence in separately labeled groups.
- Credit team work accurately. Default to "Our team built… I led the strategy," not solo credit, but do not dilute genuinely individual work. Remove or qualify anything the evidence does not support.
- Generalize third-party tools: name first-party surfaces (AI Studio), never enumerate competitor AI products. Flag employer product-marketing tone that reads as selling the platform or looking for work elsewhere.
- Verify that the opening states the thesis, pays off the title/social promise immediately, each section advances it, and the ending tells the reader what to do.
- For technical posts, verify that prose introduces each code sample and explains the behavior or tradeoff after it. Flag ornamental samples, unexplained blocks, and long runs of code without a human narrative.
- Search the changed prose for banned voice patterns such as passive self-credit, hype adjectives, resume bullets, and em dashes. Also flag three or more adjacent sentences that repeat the same subject-verb structure, especially glossary definitions and metric sequences. Read the copy aloud for varied rhythm and conversational flow because style cannot be proven by a regex, and compare the rhythm against the hand-written calibration reference linked in the writing skill.
3. Audit links and URL ownership
- Run the portfolio build to validate internal links, assets, duplicate slugs, canonical rules, and aliases.
- Open material external links or fetch them with a real GET. Confirm the destination supports the adjacent claim; do not treat a successful status alone as evidence.
- A failed third-party browser request is not proof of a CSP violation in this
environment. Reproduce the same request on a page without CSP, compare it
with a direct GET, and inspect the served header and violated directive
before changing an allowlist. If the no-CSP control also fails, report
browser reachability as unavailable instead of weakening the policy.
- For a renamed page, verify the new canonical and social URLs in rendered HTML and test every old path, with and without a trailing slash, for an HTTP 308 to the clean root-relative target. Confirm query strings survive.
- Keep one canonical owner. Do not publish duplicate local and external canonicals.
4. Audit images and metadata
- Require every hosted essay to have three distinct assets: a 1200x675 thesis header, a 1200x627 social preview, and at least one 1200x675 inline mechanism or evidence image.
- Prefer real screenshots and artifacts. Generated visuals must show a mechanism or evidence, never invent metrics, UI, logos, or product behavior.
- Iterate with the lower-cost image model; render the approved final prompt with the quality model. Save exact prompts, model IDs, aspect ratio, size, thinking setting, and post-processing in
docs/.
- Inspect file signatures with
file; never trust an extension. Verify physical dimensions and generated HTML width/height attributes.
- Ensure social preview images are optimized
.jpg files, compressed (e.g., JPEG quality 70-80), and ideally under 200KB so preview bots and answer engines can ingest them instantly.
- Write literal, asset-specific alt text. Do not reuse the header description for the social or inline image.
- Inspect the rendered page at desktop and narrow mobile widths. Check legibility, crop, padding, hierarchy, dark/light behavior when relevant, and whether the image earns its space. For diagrams, verify that each visual carries one idea, retained labels remain readable at article width, boxes have visible internal padding, and no connector, arrowhead, icon, or border collides with text. Remove microcopy before shrinking it.
5. Run the maker/checker loop
For every publishable content change, use at least one independent read-only reviewer after the maker pass. For an essay or multi-surface page, split review into these lanes when agents are available:
- Copy and claim integrity.
- Links, canonical ownership, redirects, and metadata.
- Visual taste, image truthfulness, accessibility, desktop, and mobile rendering.
Give reviewers the raw diff, rendered page, and assets. Do not give them the intended verdict. Ask for actionable blockers, not rewritten taste preferences.
After each review round: classify findings, make one focused correction pass, rerun deterministic checks, and request a fresh read-only review. Stop after at most three rounds. Stop earlier when all lanes are clean. If a material claim, source, or design decision remains unresolved, return NEEDS_HUMAN; do not average reviewer opinions or declare victory.
Use deterministic tools and lower-cost models for inventory and mechanical checks, a balanced model for edits, and the strongest justified model only for final cross-surface synthesis or unresolved ambiguity. The maker is never the only grader.
6. Required verification
Run the narrowest relevant checks, then the complete content path when practical:
npm run check:content
cd portfolio && npm test && npm run build
cd ../gateway && npm test
cd .. && node scripts/build-local.mjs && node scripts/smoke.mjs
check:content decides only what a regex can decide: em-dashes, banned phrases,
hype adjectives, the essay asset contract, alt-text distinctness, tag
vocabulary, and phrases repeated across entries. A clean run means the review
lanes below can spend their attention on claims, evidence, rhythm, and taste. It
is not a substitute for any of them, and a warning it raises is a prompt to look,
not an instruction to obey.
Also verify changed image signatures and dimensions, inspect desktop/mobile browser captures, and test affected redirects with HTTP requests. Report every command and result. Do not claim browser, link, or image review without captured evidence.
Finish only when the diff is focused, the worktree contains no secrets or accidental generated files, documentation is updated, independent review is clean, and deterministic checks pass or their exact limitation is disclosed.
