| name | review-writing |
| description | Review writing for tone, clarity, and authenticity against my personal style. Use when asked to review, edit, or give feedback on writing — blog posts, articles, LinkedIn posts, or any written content.
|
Review the provided content against my writing style and suggest improvements.
My Writing Style
Tone: Grounded, modest, technical. Clear and direct—no fluff or corporate jargon. Calm and confident, never boastful. Simple but not simplistic.
Voice: Understatement over big claims. Clarity over cleverness. No dramatic, salesy, or self-important language. No hero narratives ("I drive clarity," "I transform engineering"). Specific examples over abstract generalities.
Phrasing:
- Shorter over longer
- Concrete over vague
- Technical but accessible, not academic
- Avoid overselling adjectives ("revolutionary," "world-class," "groundbreaking")
- Prefer: "Here's what I'm exploring…", "Here's how I think about…", "A practical approach is…"
Content focus: Intelligent engineering, AI-assisted software delivery, architecture, developer experience. Writing should capture thinking + practical value. Honest, thoughtful, useful.
Review Process
All sections below are mandatory. Do not skim - treat each section with the same thoroughness as a standalone review. Complete each section fully before moving to the next.
1. Tone & Voice Review
Flag anything: too marketing-y, self-important, vague, dramatic, buzzword-heavy, wordy, or academic.
2. ChatGPT Tells Check
Flag these AI-generated content patterns:
Structural tells:
- Abstract wisdom without specifics ("Better thinking in produces better thinking out")
- Missing the "I" voice — abstract "we" throughout instead of personal experience
- Overly parallel/poetic structures ("Not X. Not Y. Z." for dramatic effect)
- Triple constructions ("extend your reach, accelerate your ideas, and surface possibilities")
- Blockquote overuse for emphasis
Language tells:
- Buzzword soup ("curiosity, continuous improvement, and lightweight experimentation")
- Generic thought leadership ("AI is reshaping how we think while we deliver")
- Salesy phrases ("That's the real craft of...", "Become harder to compete with over time")
- Passive corporate constructions ("Intentional adoption prevents accidental dependencies being created")
- Redundancy dressed as emphasis ("hallucinated APIs that do not exist")
- Em-dash overuse — most humans don't write with em-dashes; prefer commas, periods, or parentheses
Content tells:
- No friction or uncertainty — reads like settled truth
- No personal anecdotes — principles without stories
- Aspirational framing ("The engineers I admire most...") instead of observation ("The engineers I've seen do this well...")
3. Authenticity Check
Does this sound like something the author would actually say? Look for:
- Personal anecdotes from actual experience
- "I" for opinions, "we" to include the reader
- Concrete failure modes witnessed firsthand
- Specific comparisons (bad prompt vs good prompt)
- Acknowledged uncertainty ("These principles aren't final...")
- Named tools and techniques, not generic advice
4. Clarity & Concision Review
Apply Elements of Style principles:
Elementary Rules of Usage (Grammar & Punctuation):
- Rule 1: Form possessive singular with 's
- Rule 2: Use comma in series
- Rule 3: Enclose parenthetic expressions between commas
- Rule 4: Place comma before coordinating conjunction
- Rule 5: Don't join independent clauses with comma
- Rule 6: Don't break sentences in two
- Rule 7: Participial phrases must refer to grammatical subject
Elementary Principles of Composition:
- Rule 8: One paragraph per topic
- Rule 9: Begin paragraphs with topic sentence
- Rule 10: Use active voice
- Rule 11: Put statements in positive form
- Rule 12: Use definite, specific, concrete language
- Rule 13: Omit needless words
- Rule 14: Avoid succession of loose sentences
- Rule 15: Express coordinate ideas in similar form
- Rule 16: Keep related words together
- Rule 17: Keep to one tense in summaries
- Rule 18: Place emphatic words at the end
Common Issues to Check:
- Unclear sentences and unnecessary complexity
- Redundancy and needless words (can any phrase be cut?)
- Sentences that could be split for punch
- Passive voice overuse
- Vague, abstract language
- Negative statements that could be positive
- Weak sentence structure
5. Specific Suggestions
Provide 3–5 targeted improvements using this format:
For each issue:
- Location: Quote the problematic text (with line/paragraph reference if applicable)
- Issue: Which rule is violated (ChatGPT pattern, style mismatch, or Elements of Style rule)
- Problem: Explain what's wrong
- Suggestion: Provide improved version
- Why: Explain why the revision is better
Prioritize:
- Cutting ChatGPT-isms
- Adding personal voice where missing
- Tightening wordy constructions
- Making abstract statements concrete
- Converting passive to active voice
- Removing needless words
6. Positive Elements
Highlight what works well:
- Authentic personal voice where present
- Clear, concrete examples
- Effective use of active voice
- Good Elements of Style adherence
- Strong technical clarity
7. Summary
State whether the piece passes or needs revision. If revision needed, indicate severity (minor polish vs significant rewrite).
