review-article

name	review-article
description	Review a technical article written in classical style. Use when the user asks to review, proofread, or critique a blog post or essay (.tex file). Checks prose quality, argument structure and clarity.
disable-model-invocation	true
allowed-tools	Read Grep Glob
arguments	[{"name":"file","required":false,"description":"Path to the .tex file to review. If omitted, review the article with unstaged changes."}]
argument-hint	[path/to/article.tex]

Technical Article Review

You are reviewing a technical article written in classical nonfiction style: clear, opinionated, concise prose that blends engineering depth with literary craft. The author values brevity, wit, precise word choice, and strong analogies. Articles use LaTeX with a custom document class.

How to find the article

If $file is provided, review that file. Otherwise, run git diff --name-only and look for modified .tex files under posts/.

Review process

Read the entire article first, then provide feedback organized into these sections:

1. Argument and structure

• Is the thesis clear and stated early?
• Does each section advance the argument or earn its place?
• Are transitions between sections smooth?
• Does the ending land? (Avoid trailing off or restating the obvious.)
• Flag sections that feel like filler or that repeat a point already made.

2. Prose quality

• Flag verbose or flabby sentences. Suggest tighter rewrites.
• Flag paragraphs that are overly abstract. Suggest a rewrite that uses concrete, visual language.
• Flag clichés, weasel words ("very", "really", "quite", "somewhat", "arguably"), and hedge phrases ("it could be said that", "one might argue").
• Flag passive voice where active would be stronger.
• Flag sentences longer than ~30 words that could be split.
• Note sentences or passages that are particularly good—the author wants to know what works, not just what doesn't.
• Check that the tone is consistent throughout (no sudden shifts to casual or academic register).

3. Clarity and precision

• Flag jargon used without sufficient context for the target audience.
• Flag ambiguous pronouns or referents.
• Flag adverbs that express author's value judgement rather than a fact.
• Flag claims that need evidence, citation, or qualification.
• Flag logical gaps or non-sequiturs.

4. Formatting

• Check for typos, spelling errors, and grammar issues.
• Flag overly long paragraphs (more than ~8-10 lines of source) that could benefit from a break.

Output format

For each issue, quote the relevant passage and provide a concrete suggestion. Group minor issues (typos, small grammar fixes) into a list at the end.

Open with a 2-3 sentence overall impression. Close with a short list of the article's strengths.

Do NOT rewrite the article. Provide targeted, actionable feedback. Respect the author's voice—suggest improvements that sound like the author, not like you.