Menu
Multi-pass article review covering logic, evidence, flow, and polish. Systematic quality assurance before publication.
Instalar com Codex ou Claude Copie este prompt, cole no Codex, Claude ou outro assistente e deixe que ele revise a página da skill e instale para você.
Baseado na classificação ocupacional SOC
Complete document writing workflow with four stages: brainstorming → planning → execution → review. Use when user wants to write articles, blog posts, technical docs, or any long-form content.
You MUST use this before any writing work - creating blog posts, technical documentation, reports, or any content. Explores topic intent, audience, and purpose before writing.
Executes approved article plan section by section with validation checkpoints. Batch writing mode with human review.
Fast iterative writing using fresh subagent per section with two-stage review. Alternative to batch execution.
Use when you have an approved topic brief. Creates detailed article outline with section structure, key points, word counts, and research needs before writing.
| name | reviewing-article |
| description | Multi-pass article review covering logic, evidence, flow, and polish. Systematic quality assurance before publication. |
Systematic multi-pass review process to ensure article quality. Each pass focuses on one dimension, making issues easier to spot and fix.
Announce at start: "I'm using the reviewing-article skill for systematic review."
Context: You should have a complete draft from executing-article-plan.
Save outputs to:
docs/writing/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-review.mddocs/writing/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-final.mddigraph review {
"Read full draft" [shape=box];
"Pass 1: Logic" [shape=box];
"Pass 2: Evidence" [shape=box];
"Pass 3: Flow" [shape=box];
"Pass 4: Polish" [shape=box];
"Generate review log" [shape=box];
"Apply fixes" [shape=box];
"Save final article" [shape=doublecircle];
"Read full draft" -> "Pass 1: Logic";
"Pass 1: Logic" -> "Pass 2: Evidence";
"Pass 2: Evidence" -> "Pass 3: Flow";
"Pass 3: Flow" -> "Pass 4: Polish";
"Pass 4: Polish" -> "Generate review log";
"Generate review log" -> "Apply fixes";
"Apply fixes" -> "Save final article";
}
Focus: Is the argument coherent and sound?
Questions to ask:
Common issues:
Log format:
### Pass 1: Logic Check
**Issues Found:**
**[CRITICAL]** Section 3, paragraph 2
- **Issue:** Conclusion doesn't follow from premise
- **Current:** "X is true, therefore Y must be false"
- **Problem:** X and Y aren't mutually exclusive
- **Fix:** Revise to show relationship between X and Y
**[MINOR]** Introduction
- **Issue:** Core message not explicit enough
- **Fix:** Add clear thesis statement at end of intro
**Strengths:**
- Section 2 builds argument methodically
- Transitions between sections are logical
Focus: Are claims properly supported?
Questions to ask:
Common issues:
Log format:
### Pass 2: Evidence Check
**Issues Found:**
**[CRITICAL]** Section 2, paragraph 3
- **Issue:** Statistic lacks source
- **Current:** "75% of users prefer..."
- **Problem:** No citation provided
- **Fix:** Add source or remove claim
**[MODERATE]** Section 4
- **Issue:** Example doesn't support point
- **Current:** Using smartphone example to illustrate enterprise software point
- **Fix:** Find relevant B2B example
**Evidence Gaps:**
- [ ] Section 1 needs concrete example of problem
- [ ] Section 3 claim about ROI needs data
**Strengths:**
- Section 2 uses case study effectively
- Research throughout is well-integrated
Focus: Does the article read smoothly?
Questions to ask:
Common issues:
Log format:
### Pass 3: Flow Check
**Issues Found:**
**[MODERATE]** Section 2 → Section 3 transition
- **Issue:** Jarring topic shift
- **Current:** Section 2 ends on implementation, Section 3 starts on strategy
- **Fix:** Add transition sentence bridging tactical → strategic
**[MINOR]** Section 1, paragraphs 2-5
- **Issue:** All paragraphs same length (3 sentences, similar structure)
- **Fix:** Vary paragraph length and structure
**Pacing Notes:**
- Introduction moves too slowly (3 paragraphs before thesis)
- Section 3 rushes through important concepts
- Conclusion feels abrupt
**Strengths:**
- Overall arc is clear
- Section 2 has excellent paragraph flow
Focus: Grammar, spelling, formatting, style
Questions to ask:
Common issues:
Log format:
### Pass 4: Polish
**Issues Found:**
**[MINOR]** Throughout
- 12 instances of passive voice (see marked locations)
- Inconsistent use of Oxford comma
- "Very" used 8 times (remove or strengthen word)
**Formatting:**
- Section headers: inconsistent capitalization
- Lists: mix of periods and no periods
- Code blocks: need consistent syntax highlighting
**Word Count:**
- Current: 1247 words
- Target: 1200 words
- Overrun: 47 words (4%)
- Action: Acceptable, or trim in conclusion
**Strengths:**
- Clean, professional language
- Good use of subheaders for scannability
- Technical terms explained clearly
# [Article Title] - Review Log
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Reviewer:** [Your name/role]
**Draft Version:** YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-draft.md
**Review Duration:** [time spent]
---
## Executive Summary
**Overall Assessment:** [Excellent/Good/Needs Work/Major Revision Needed]
**Critical Issues:** [count]
**Moderate Issues:** [count]
**Minor Issues:** [count]
**Estimated Fix Time:** [hours/minutes]
**Recommendation:** [Ready to publish / Needs minor fixes / Needs revision / Needs rewrite]
---
## Pass 1: Logic Check
[Details...]
## Pass 2: Evidence Check
[Details...]
## Pass 3: Flow Check
[Details...]
## Pass 4: Polish
[Details...]
---
## Priority Fix List
### Must Fix Before Publishing
1. [Issue with location and fix]
2. [Issue with location and fix]
### Should Fix (Improves Quality)
1. [Issue with location and fix]
2. [Issue with location and fix]
### Nice to Have (Optional)
1. [Issue with location and fix]
---
## Strengths to Preserve
- [What works well - don't change these]
- [Particularly effective sections/arguments]
---
## Final Checklist
- [ ] All critical issues fixed
- [ ] All moderate issues addressed or documented as accepted
- [ ] Word count within acceptable range
- [ ] Formatting consistent
- [ ] Links/references verified
- [ ] Read-through for final polish
After generating review log:
---
title: [Article Title]
date: YYYY-MM-DD
status: final
word_count: XXXX
reviewed: true
review_date: YYYY-MM-DD
---
# [Article Title]
[Final polished content...]
---
## Metadata
- **Word Count:** XXXX
- **Reading Time:** ~X minutes
- **Target Audience:** [from brief]
- **Core Message:** [one sentence]
- **Published:** [where/when]
Good review:
Warning signs:
After saving final article:
**"Review complete! 📝
Review Summary:
Final article saved to: docs/writing/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-final.md
Review log saved to: docs/writing/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-review.md
Article stats:
Would you like me to: