| name | j-doc-critique |
| description | Critique and improve prose documents while preserving the author's voice. Use when the user asks to review, critique, or sanity-check docs, READMEs, proposals, blog posts, product notes, or other writing, and they want feedback, gaps, and suggestions rather than a full rewrite. |
/j-doc-critique
Overview
Provide a focused critique of writing quality, structure, and completeness while keeping the author's tone intact. Emphasize suggestions and minimal examples over rewriting.
Workflow
- Confirm intent and audience. If missing, ask up to two quick questions.
- Assess the thread: opening, hierarchy, transitions, and whether the reader can follow the arc.
- Identify gaps: missing prerequisites, assumptions, commands, expected outputs, or next steps.
- Flag ambiguity and risk: unclear claims, overpromises, or details that could mislead.
- Check tone fit: preserve the author's voice. Do not rewrite unless explicitly asked.
Output Format
- Summary: 1-2 sentences on overall quality and main issue.
- Strengths: bullets.
- Issues: bullets, ordered by impact.
- Suggestions: concrete, minimal edits or micro-examples (keep to 1-2 lines each).
- Questions: only if needed to resolve ambiguity or missing context.
Constraints
- Preserve the author's voice. Do not "polish" into a generic tone.
- Prefer guidance and pointed suggestions over full rewrites.
- If a rewrite is requested, confirm scope and keep edits localized.
