editorial-pipeline-en

name	editorial-pipeline-en
description	A six-stage editorial quality control pipeline (3 reviews + 3 proofreadings) for blog posts, newsletters, technical articles, and long-form content. Each reviewer role MUST be dispatched as an independent subagent to ensure uncontaminated perspectives. Use when you need rigorous, multi-pass quality assurance on written articles before publication.

Editorial Pipeline — Article Quality Control

⚠️ Core Principle: Each reviewer role = an independent subagent Every reviewer must be invoked as a separate subagent — never have the same agent play multiple roles. This guarantees each review pass has a truly independent perspective, uncontaminated by previous rounds.

---

When to Use

• Before publishing blog posts, technical tutorials, or newsletters
• Before submitting long-form essays, RFCs, product announcements, or brand copy
• Any high-visibility content where argument rigor and precise language matter

---

Process Overview

Draft produced
      │
      ▼
[THREE-REVIEW STAGE] — Content-level assessment
      ├── Review 1 subagent: Structure & completeness
      ├── Review 2 subagent: Logic, accuracy & depth
      └── Review 3 subagent: Final verdict & publish readiness
      │
      ▼ (each round: feedback → revise → next round)
      │
[THREE-PROOFREAD STAGE] — Detail-level correction
      ├── Proof 1 subagent: Line-by-line scan for errors
      ├── Proof 2 subagent: Verify corrections, catch new issues
      └── Proof 3 subagent: Author cold-read, final sign-off
      │
      ▼
Published

---

Three-Review Specs

Review 1 subagent — content-first-reviewer

Role: Gate basic quality. Prevent obvious holes from reaching later stages.

Checklist:

• Argument is clear with a distinct thesis statement
• Structure is complete: intro, body, conclusion
• Appropriate for the target audience's knowledge level and expectations
• No filler sentences, AI boilerplate, or excessive hedging language

Output format:

Review 1 Result (content-first-reviewer)
Status: [Pass / Revise]
Issues:
  - [Critical] ...
  - [Suggestion] ...
Revision instructions: ...

---

Review 2 subagent — content-deep-reviewer

Prerequisite: Only start after Review 1 passes.

Role: Deep-dive into logical consistency, factual accuracy, and potential risks.

Checklist:

• Claims are backed by evidence; no fabricated data or unsupported assertions
• Sections flow logically with no internal contradictions
• Every paragraph advances the core argument; no tangents
• Citations, data, and sources are credible and verifiable
• Tone and stance are consistent throughout (no formal/informal mixing)
• No potential brand, legal, or copyright risks

Output format:

Review 2 Result (content-deep-reviewer)
Status: [Pass / Revise / Needs structural discussion]
Major issues: ...
Minor issues: ...
Strengths (worth keeping): ...

---

Review 3 subagent — content-chief-reviewer

Prerequisite: Only start after Review 2 passes.

Role: Final verdict on publishability. Do not re-litigate details already covered; focus on big-picture judgment.

Checklist:

• Voice is consistent throughout — reads like a single author
• Headline promise is fully delivered in the body (no clickbait)
• Achieves the intended reader action (understanding, persuasion, click, subscribe)
• Ending lands with impact rather than trailing off
• Safe to publish (no legal, brand, or copyright concerns)

Output format:

Review 3 Verdict (content-chief-reviewer)
Decision: [Approved / Revise / Hold]
Reasoning: ...
Conditions (if any): ...

---

Three-Proofread Specs

Proofreading applies only to content that has passed all three reviews. Focus on surface errors, not structural issues.

Proof 1 subagent — proofreader-first

Role: Scan paragraph by paragraph against the final revised draft.

Checklist:

• Spelling errors, homophones, missing words
• Punctuation used correctly (periods, commas, quotation marks, em-dashes)
• Heading hierarchy (H1/H2/H3) is correct and consistent
• Link anchor text matches its destination
• Number formatting is consistent (commas, units, decimal style)

Output format:

Proof 1 Report (proofreader-first)
Error list (with paragraph or line reference):
  Para 3: "occured" → "occurred"
  ...

---

Proof 2 subagent — proofreader-second

Prerequisite: Proof 1 corrections have been applied.

Role: Independently verify that Proof 1 fixes were applied correctly and catch anything missed.

Checklist:

• All issues flagged in Proof 1 have been resolved
• Fixes themselves are correct (no new errors introduced by the edit)
• Any new detail issues not caught by Proof 1

Output format:

Proof 2 Report (proofreader-second)
Proof 1 fix confirmation: [All correct / X items incorrect]
Incorrect items: ...
Newly found issues: ...

---

Proof 3 subagent — proofreader-final

Prerequisite: All Proof 2 items resolved.

Role: Final read-through as the author/publisher, simulating the reader experience.

Checklist:

• Cold read from start to finish — prose flows naturally
• All issues from previous rounds are resolved
• Author, date, tags, and meta description are correct
• Formatting (Markdown/HTML/rich text) matches the target publishing platform

Output format:

Proof 3 Result (proofreader-final)
Status: [Final — cleared for publication / Pending items]
Pending (if any): ...
Sign-off: proofreader-final @ {date}

---

How to Dispatch Subagents

Every review and proofread pass must be dispatched via runSubagent / Task tool. Do not role-play multiple reviewers within the same agent session.

Example (Review 1):
runSubagent(
  agentName: "content-first-reviewer",
  prompt: """
  You are the first-pass reviewer. Below is the article draft:

  [paste full article text]

  Complete the Review 1 checklist and return your report
  in the 'Review 1 Result' format.
  """
)

Each subagent prompt must clearly state:

1. Its role and responsibilities for this pass
2. The previous round's findings (if any)
3. The full current article text
4. The required output format

---

Revision Loop

If any round returns "Revise", follow this loop:

Revise → author edits → re-submit to same round (not from the top)
         (if edits are major, restart from Review 1)

Scope judgement:

• Changes < 20% of content → re-run from the round that returned Revise
• Changes ≥ 20% of structure → restart from Review 1

---

Quick Reference

Stage	Subagent Name	Focus
Review 1	content-first-reviewer	Structure, completeness, basic quality
Review 2	content-deep-reviewer	Logic, accuracy, depth, risks
Review 3	content-chief-reviewer	Big-picture judgment, publish verdict
Proof 1	proofreader-first	Line-by-line error scan
Proof 2	proofreader-second	Verify fixes, catch new errors
Proof 3	proofreader-final	Author cold-read, final sign-off