chinese-blog-review

name	chinese-blog-review
description	Use when reviewing or proofreading Chinese blog posts, Markdown drafts, technical notes, or long-form articles. Reports findings on title fit, topic focus, structure, technical accuracy, evidence, and Chinese copy formatting. NOT for English-only content, academic papers, marketing or brand copy, or auto-rewriting an article.

Chinese Blog Review

Overview

Use this skill as a Chinese blog editorial review guide. Treat article review like code review: report concrete issues with evidence and impact, preserve author voice, and only edit text when the user explicitly asks for changes.

Workflow

1. Identify the article type: blog post, Markdown draft, technical note, essay, tutorial, or long-form documentation.
2. Read references/review.md and give editorial feedback first.
3. If the draft makes technical, factual, version-sensitive, or empirical claims (API behavior, protocol or standard, performance numbers, version availability, legal or compliance, pricing, second-hand 据说 / 听说 content), also load references/verifiability.md and apply its primary-source mapping, time-sensitivity tiers, four-state annotation, and AI-hallucination checklist.
4. Read references/rules.md only for copy formatting and Chinese mixed-script typography.
5. If the draft has English sentences, quotations, titles, labels, book / journal names, or punctuation-heavy Chinese-English mixing, also load references/mixed-punctuation.md.
6. Preserve Markdown structure, inline code, code blocks, URLs, frontmatter keys, package names, file paths, identifiers, command flags, and official brand spelling.
7. Treat formatting-only issues as lower priority than content correctness, topic fit, structure, and factual accuracy.
8. When fact-checking is needed, fetch primary sources and distinguish verified facts, inferences, and items still pending verification using the four-state annotation in verifiability.md.
9. If a project-specific style guide conflicts with this skill, follow the project-specific rule.

Output

Follow the structure and finding format defined in references/review.md (Output Format section). The rules below cover policy only, not formatting:

• For review requests, return findings first. Do not rewrite the article unless asked.
• For polishing requests, return the corrected text first and keep changes scoped.
• For file edits, modify only the relevant text and avoid unrelated formatting churn.
• For exact upstream wording or version-sensitive questions, fetch the current upstream README before answering.
• Calibrate review length by value, not by forcing every dimension:
  • Report all blocking issues: confirmed factual errors, title/content mismatch, broken core argument, or materially misleading claims.
  • Keep the count of actionable findings (严重 / 中等) within a practical budget:
    • under ~1000 Chinese characters: usually 5 actionable findings, up to 8 when the article has 2+ blocking issues or title/topic problems that require separate fixes.
    • 1000-3000 characters: usually 8-12 actionable findings.
    • 3000-8000 characters: usually 12-18 actionable findings.
    • over 8000 characters: group findings by the article's original H2 sections when available; usually 18-25 actionable findings total unless the user asks for exhaustive review.
  • 轻微 findings do not count toward the actionable budget, but should be grouped or omitted unless they meaningfully affect readability.
  • 事实核查 flags do not count toward the actionable budget, but report only confirmed errors or claims that must be checked before publishing; group related verification concerns.
  • Repeated copy, punctuation, or wording issues should be reported once with examples, not item by item.
  • If over budget, drop or merge low-severity findings first; never hide blocking issues just because the budget is full.

Source

Copy-formatting guidance is a compact local adaptation of sparanoid/chinese-copywriting-guidelines, CY/T 154-2017 中文出版物夹用英文的编辑规范, and the Chinese technical writing guide referenced in references/mixed-punctuation.md. It is not a verbatim mirror.