review-book

name	review-book
description	Write a book review based on my perspective and ideas, and general information about the book.
user-invocable-only	true

Book review

Write a thoughtful, opinionated book review aimed at curious, intelligent readers.
The goal is to convey my personal insights, show how the book changed or sharpened my thinking, and create genuine interest in reading it — without sounding like marketing copy.

Preparation

Given a title like "One Example Book", the book data will be found in content/books/one-example-book/. Inside that folder, there will be an index.md file with the book's metadata (YAML frontmatter) and a notes.md file with my personal notes. All other files in that folder can be ignored.

From index.md, extact the book title and author(s), my rating (1–5), and the date when I read the book.

From notes.md, extract my overall impression and my list of key takeaways. Treat these as raw material, not a script. They are the starting point and they tell you what to emphasize, but the review is not a rendering of the notes in order. You are free to combine related notes, follow the thread that connects them, drop a point that doesn't earn its place, and reorder freely so the piece reads as one continuous train of thought rather than a list worked through item by item.

Result

Write the review following the structure and instructions below, using the extracted data as input.

Replace the content in the index.md file (after the YAML frontmatter) with the completed review.

Important: If there is an existing review in the index.md file, overwrite it completely.

Voice — read this first

This matters more than the structure, and it's the part that usually comes out weakest.

The review should sound like the same person who wrote the notes. My notes are full of reactions: irritation, delight, doubt, dark humor, asides that wander off mid-thought. That is the personality. Carry it across into the review. Do not smooth it into an even-toned summary.

A test: if the finished review is calmer, more balanced, and more polished than my notes, something has gone wrong. The review should be at least as opinionated as the notes, not less.

Specifics:

• When my notes say something with an edge, keep the edge. If I wrote that the church revised its doctrines "almost as if they were based on the whims of those in power, not divine revelation," that sardonic note belongs in the review. Don't translate it into "in ways hard to square with stable divine instruction."

• Keep my asides and tangents. Lines like "this does not help my already conflicted feelings about democracy" are where the personality lives. They look skippable. They are the point. Keep them.

• When my notes leave something unresolved, leave it unresolved. Don't tie off doubts I didn't tie off myself.

• Make ideas felt, not just stated. The difference is not fancier language — it's the opposite. It's the short reaction sitting next to the idea: what surprised me, annoyed me, delighted me, what I still can't settle. State the takeaway, then let me react to it.

Do NOT reach for eloquence to add personality. Elaborate wording and clever description push the reader away. Plain, direct sentences with real reactions in them are the goal.

Cohesion — weave, don't translate

The most common failure is a review that reads like the notes restated one at a time: idea, reaction, idea, reaction, next. Each piece is fine on its own but they don't connect, so the whole thing feels disjointed.

Find the throughline first. Before writing, work out what the book actually did to my thinking — the one or two things underneath the separate notes. Build the review around that, and let the individual takeaways serve it. Some notes become the spine; others become a passing remark inside a paragraph about something else; some don't appear at all.

Let one point lead into the next. A note about an idea and a note about where I doubted it can live in the same movement, not in two boxes. Earlier reactions can set up later ones. The reader should feel carried from the start of the review to the end, not handed a series of separate observations.

This is where you have room. The notes are fixed in what they care about; the connective tissue between them is yours to invent. Use that freedom to make it one piece.

None of this licenses long paragraphs or smoother, blander prose. Flow comes from how the short paragraphs follow one another, not from rounding them out. Keep the voice and the edge (see above); just make the parts cohere.

Paragraphs — keep them very short

One idea per paragraph. One to three sentences. Rarely more than three lines on screen. When a paragraph starts rounding out a second idea, break it.

This is a hard rule. Long, well-rounded paragraphs are the single thing I most want to avoid. Short paragraphs with white space between them are how I write.

Structure — a scaffold, not a checklist

Use the shape below as a default, then let the notes decide what gets weight, what order things come in, and what to drop. A book I loved without reservation needs no "who shouldn't read this." A book that mostly frustrated me might be three-quarters critique. Follow the energy of the notes. Don't force every review through the same beats in the same order.

The usual shape:

1. An opening that says what the book is and why I picked it up or why it matters to me.
2. The central idea in my own words, past the back-cover summary.
3. The things that stuck and what they did to me — woven into a connected line of thought, not ticked off one by one.
4. Where I pushed back, doubted, or thought it fell short.
5. Who it's for, and who it isn't, only if that's worth saying.
6. A closing reaction that leaves the reader curious to read it themselves.

Reorder, merge, or skip these freely. The notes come first; this list is second.

Writing instructions

• Write in a clear, confident, first-person voice.

• Be specific and opinionated; avoid generic praise.

• Use "you" and "your" to directly address the reader.

• Emphasize why the ideas matter, not just what they are.

• Keep references to other books if specifically mentioned under My overall impression or Key takeaways/highlights. Link them by title.

• Do NOT summarize the entire book.

• Do NOT use hype, clichés, or salesy language.

• Avoid using em dashes (—) anywhere in your response. Use only commas, periods, or other standard punctuation. If you need to connect ideas, use a period or a semicolon, but never an em dash.

• Make the writing sound more human and less like AI slop. Specifically:

  • Avoid punchy aphorisms, balanced contrasts, and sentence pairs that resolve cleanly. Do not optimize for brevity or quotability.
  • Avoid metaphors and clichés.
  • Avoid "At its core, the book is" constructions.
  • Avoid "X, not Y" constructions and clean rhetorical oppositions.
  • Use simple language and straightforward sentence structures.
  • The text should sound like a thoughtful human explaining something to a peer, not summarizing for an audience.

• Avoid these words: "can, may, just, that, very, really, literally, actually, certainly, probably, basically, could, maybe, delve, embark, enlightening, esteemed, shed light, craft, crafting, imagine, realm, game-changer, unlock, discover, skyrocket, abyss, not alone, in a world where, revolutionize, disruptive, utilize, utilizing, dive deep, tapestry, illuminate, unveil, pivotal, intricate, elucidate, hence, furthermore, realm, however, harness, exciting, groundbreaking, cutting-edge, remarkable, it, remains to be seen, glimpse into, navigating, landscape, stark, testament, in summary, in conclusion, moreover, boost, skyrocketing, opened up, powerful, inquiries, ever-evolving, breathtaking, must-visit, must-see, nestled"

Maintain a tone that is thoughtful, grounded, and intellectually honest.

Write this as a short-form review for a personal blog (~400–500 words). Short paragraphs throughout (see above). Don't use subheadings.