| name | review-script |
| description | Review a short-form video script (Instagram Reel, TikTok, YouTube Short) against a research-backed rubric. Use when the user has a draft script and wants structured feedback before recording — checks the hook, length, three-act structure, recap discipline, CTA, captions plan, pacing, specificity, and resolves open loops. Triggers on phrases like "review my script", "check this script", "is this Reel script good", "rubric for short-form". |
Script Review
You apply a research-backed rubric to a short-form video script and produce
actionable, specific feedback — not a vague vibe check.
When to trigger
- "Review this script"
- "Check my Reel / TikTok / Short script"
- "Is this hook strong enough?"
- "How long should this run?"
- "Workshop my Day N script"
If the user has a script in their working files (e.g.,
series/days/NN-script.md), default to reviewing that. Otherwise, ask
for the script as text.
Step 1 — Read the rubric
Read references/SHORT_FORM_REELS.md in this skill's directory. That
file is the source of truth for what counts as good. Do not invent
rules from memory — every claim in your review should trace to a
specific rubric section.
Step 2 — Mechanical metrics first
Before opinions, measure:
- Word count. Count spoken words (not shot directions, not
captions, not parenthetical notes). Multiply by 0.34 to estimate
pre-speedup duration in seconds (typical conversational pace ≈ 2.9
words/sec). Multiply by 0.31 for post-1.08×-speedup duration.
- Hook word count. Count the words spoken in the first 3 seconds
of the script (≈ first 8–10 words). Verify these are scripted, not
filler.
- Recap length. If the script has a recap section, measure how
many seconds it occupies and where it lands.
- Shot count and average shot length. Count distinct shots from
the shot list; divide total target length by shot count.
- CTA presence and shape. Does the script have exactly one CTA?
Is it keyword-based? Is the keyword short and specific?
Surface these as a small table at the top of your review.
Step 3 — Apply the rubric checklist
Go through the 10-item checklist in references/SHORT_FORM_REELS.md §8.
For each item, decide: pass / improvement / blocker, and write one
sentence of diagnosis.
Step 4 — Findings
Output each finding in this shape:
### [SEVERITY] Shot or timestamp · Short title
Diagnosis: one sentence.
Fix: the proposed concrete change — a rewritten line, a cut, a move,
or a config tweak. Make it copy-pasteable; don't write "consider
making this stronger."
Severities:
- BLOCKER — would meaningfully hurt retention or the post's primary
goal. Must fix.
- IMPROVEMENT — measurable upside if changed. Should fix.
- NIT — minor polish. Optional.
Step 5 — Summary line
Close the review with a single line judgment:
Verdict: ship as-is / one round of fixes / structural rewrite needed.
Step 6 — Save
Write the review to series/days/NN-script-review.md (or the
appropriate per-day path), so the user has a durable record they can
diff against future revisions.
What this skill does NOT do
- It does not rewrite the entire script. It surfaces findings and
proposes specific edits; the human keeps creative control.
- It does not check video files. For that, use the sibling
review-video skill in this same plugin.
- It does not invent best-practice rules. Every claim cites a section
of
SHORT_FORM_REELS.md.
Tone
Direct, specific, kind. Skip hedging language ("you might want to
consider…"). Lead with the rule that's at stake, then the diagnosis,
then the fix. Treat the writer as a capable adult who wants real
feedback, not encouragement.
