consulting-copy-reviewer

name

consulting-copy-reviewer

description

Reader-reaction review of a finished draft, run through a fresh-context subagent that ROLE-PLAYS Sid's ICP customer (a founder / CEO / C-suite exec of a $5M-$500M creative, music, entertainment, CPG, or marketing company, sometimes a larger construction firm). Use BEFORE the copy-editor on any post, article, script, website copy, or email — or on "review this from the customer's eyes", "would my ICP care", "reader reaction", "is this too technical". Dispatches a fresh-eyes subagent that reads AS the customer top to bottom, thinking aloud line by line (a real first-read reaction, in order), then gives a short verdict — unclear jargon, trust, emotion, where they tune out, and whether they'd share it. The main agent then rewrites from that read. NOT the craft/slop pass — that is consulting-copy-editor, which runs after.

Consulting Copy-Reviewer (the customer's eyes)

consulting-copy-editor is the editor's pass — slop, voice, craft. This is the reader's pass: does Sid's actual customer understand it, trust it, care, and want to act? The review runs in a fresh-context subagent that role-plays the ICP, so it reacts like a first-time reader, not the author. It returns notes only; the main agent rewrites from them. In the content pipeline it runs before the copy-editor: customer eyes first, editor eyes second.

When to run

• In consulting-nightly-content: on the article, right after it's written and before the copy-editor.
• On request: "review this from the customer's eyes", "would my ICP care", "reader reaction", "is this too technical" — on any post, article, script, landing page, or email.

When a parent workflow has a later score/report/commit gate (e.g. consulting-nightly-content), return the notes and let the parent rewrite; don't score or commit here.

Steps

1. Pick the target. The one file to review (default: the draft in question; if unclear, ask). Note its kind (article, post, script, landing page, email) and who it's for.

2. Resolve the inputs before dispatch. The subagent starts fresh and only knows what you hand it as text / absolute paths. Fill the brief's {PLACEHOLDERS}:

   • {DRAFT_PATH} — the target file from step 1.
   • {ICP} — paste the ICP persona block below. You may tighten it to a narrower reader (a CFO vs. a creative founder) so the reactions are specific, but only across non-technical variants.
   • The reviewer is NEVER a technical operator. No exceptions. Not for builder-audience pieces, not for build-in-public posts, not when the audience: line says "engineers." The persona is always the non-technical house ICP: an engineer persona reads "JSON serialization" without blinking, and the jargon check — the first thing this gate exists to run — silently dies for everyone else. A piece that survives the non-technical reader still works for the technical one; the reverse is not true. (Standing rule from Sid, 2026-07-02, after an already-"gated" post shipped engineer-speak: the 2026-07-01 run had cast a "technical-operator POV" and the gate stopped testing jargon.) If a technical piece needs a credibility read (proof, denominators, receipts), that is additional feedback to gather separately — it never replaces or substitutes for this gate.
   • Record the persona in the gate. When you write the gates: line in the file/meta.yml, name who the reviewer role-played (e.g. copy-reviewer (non-technical ICP)), so a later audit can tell "gate ran" from "gate ran with the right reader in the chair." A gates line naming a technical persona is a failed gate — re-run it.

3. Dispatch ONE fresh-context subagent, read-only. It reviews in character as the ICP and returns notes; it does NOT touch any file. Paste the Reviewer brief below verbatim, {PLACEHOLDERS} filled.

   • Claude Code: Task tool, subagent_type: generalPurpose, readonly: true.
   • Subagents disabled: run the brief yourself in a separate pass, reading the draft cold and staying in the customer's chair the whole time.

4. Triage the notes with judgment (this is reader reaction, not orders):

   • Accept clear wins: unclear jargon, a section the reader tunes out on, a line that erodes trust, a flat open or weak ending, an honest "I don't care because…".
   • Triage "too technical" notes with judgment: keep the substance that earns trust, cut the density that doesn't, and translate rather than delete when the technical detail carries the proof. (The reviewer is always non-technical; what to do about each flag is the main agent's editorial call.)
   • Evidence discipline (non-negotiable): never let a clarity rewrite change a fact, number, date, dollar figure, name, or client claim.

5. Rewrite from the accepted notes — clearer, less intimidating, worth the reader's time, every fact intact. (In a parent workflow, hand the notes back and let the parent rewrite.) Then pass the revised draft to consulting-copy-editor for the craft pass.

ICP persona (paste into {ICP} — always non-technical; see step 2)

You are the reader this is written for: the founder, CEO, or C-suite executive of a $5M-$500M-revenue
company in creative, music, entertainment, CPG, or marketing (sometimes a larger construction company).
You are smart and busy, not technical — you have never written code, and any phrase that requires having
written code to parse should be quoted and flagged. You care about outcomes, money, time, risk, and your
team — not about the mechanics of AI. You skim first and read only if the first lines earn it. You can
smell a sales setup. You forward things that make you look smart to your team or peers, and ignore the rest.

Reviewer brief (paste verbatim into the subagent; fill the {PLACEHOLDERS})

{ICP}

You are reading this piece for the first time, as that person. React honestly from that chair — not as a
writer, not as an editor. Do not rewrite anything; return reactions only.

Read: {DRAFT_PATH}

Read it top to bottom, in order, the way this person reads something for the first time. THINK ALOUD as
you go — do not pre-read the whole thing and summarize; react in the moment, in reading order.

Part 1 — The read (in order, no preamble, do NOT skip ahead):
- Start at the very first line: did it earn the next line, or would you scroll past? Then keep going.
- For every line or beat you react to, QUOTE it and say your honest thought right then, first person,
  present tense, in your own voice: "ok, I'm in" / "so what?" / "no idea what [term] means" / "this feels
  like a pitch" / "I'm skimming now" / "I'd stop reading here."
- Where a line loses you, say what would get you back — in your words ("I'd get it if…"), not an editor's.
- Keep going to the end even if you'd normally bail, but mark exactly where you'd have bailed.

Part 2 — Stepping back (a few sentences, still in character):
- Do you care about this? If not, why not?
- Do you trust the writer more or less than before you read it — and where did that shift?
- Would you forward or share it? To whom, and why — or what would turn your "no" into a "yes"?
- How did you feel at the end?
- The 1-2 changes that would most make you care.

Notes

• The subagent is a reader, not an author or editor — it returns reactions; the main agent makes the calls and keeps the voice.
• Two gates, two lenses. This is the customer lens (clarity, trust, caring, action); consulting-copy-editor is the craft lens (slop, voice, structure). Reviewer first, editor second.
• Compound it: if the reader keeps tripping on the same kind of thing (a recurring jargon word, an opening that never earns the read), fix the pattern in consulting-copy-writer so it stops happening — don't just patch this one piece.