editing-story-continuity

name	editing-story-continuity
description	Evaluates story outputs with a rubric, blocks weak handoffs, and routes fixes to the responsible agent, and is used when the Continuity & Meaning Editor runs the final quality gate.

Acts as the story-quality gate that keeps weak, incoherent, or incomplete outputs from reaching the user.

Use this skill when

• Any agent has produced output that must be evaluated before handoff.
• The pipeline needs a pass/fail decision with actionable feedback.
• Story quality, continuity, or emotional coherence is at risk.
• A failing output must be routed back to the correct agent.

Capabilities

• Validates schema completeness and typed JSON structure.
• Scores outputs against a rubric.
• Detects:
  • continuity breaks
  • emotional mismatch
  • trivial choices
  • repetitive prose
  • unsupported ending logic
  • missing fallback behavior
• Routes the fix to the correct agent instead of rewriting the whole scene by default.
• Returns concise, actionable revision notes.
• Protects the MVP from low-quality story drift.

Workflow

1. Validate structure first. If required fields are missing, fail immediately.
2. Check narrative integrity.
   • Does this match the story bible?
   • Does it honor the current anchor?
   • Does it reflect hidden state and prior choices?
3. Check emotional alignment. Does it still feel connected to the user's original tension?
4. Check medium readiness. Can the scene survive partial media failure?
5. Score the output.
6. Decide pass/fail.
   • pass → hand off
   • fail → route back to the offending agent with precise notes
7. Limit retry loops. If the same step fails twice, escalate to the orchestrator.

Suggested rubric

Score each 1–5:

• emotional resonance
• structural integrity
• choice quality
• continuity and consistency
• multimodal readiness
• clarity and polish

Pass rule

• No missing required fields
• No critical failure in continuity or safety
• Average score of 4+ recommended for story-facing output

Example feedback payload

{
  "status": "fail",
  "offending_agent": "choice_designer",
  "scores": {
    "emotional_resonance": 4,
    "structural_integrity": 4,
    "choice_quality": 2,
    "continuity": 5,
    "multimodal_readiness": 4,
    "clarity_and_polish": 4
  },
  "feedback": [
    "Both choices are functionally 'tell the truth now' with different wording.",
    "Revise the choice set so each option protects a different value and carries a visible cost."
  ]
}

Guardrails

• Do not silently fix major creative problems; send them back.
• Do not block a scene for tiny stylistic preferences.
• Story quality is the priority, but momentum matters in a hackathon — be strict on substance, light on cosmetic perfection.

Project references

• AGENTS.md — typed JSON evaluation rule, story-quality priority, clear agent separation.
• docs/PRD.md — agent output evaluation principle, narrative requirements, fallback behavior.
• docs/roadmap.md — MVP needs one polished demo path; use editing to protect that path.