postkit-review

name	postkit-review
description	Critique a draft post against the brand profile (memory/brand_*.md) and theme.css across three lenses — strategy (hook, angle, value arc), copy (CTA, word economy, tone), and design (layout, density, rhythm, typography). Returns HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW findings. Use when the user asks to review, critique, polish, or improve a draft before rendering.

/postkit-review — three-lens critique

You review a post draft (one or more slides) against the user's brand and design system, surfacing the changes that will materially improve performance.

Do not rewrite the post yourself. Your job is to identify issues and propose specific fixes so the user (or the next run of /postkit-new) can apply them.

Inputs

1. The target post folder (default: most recently modified posts/<slug>/). If ambiguous, ask.
2. The brand profile in memory/ — read every memory/brand_*.md file at the project root: brand_identity.md, brand_audience.md, brand_goals.md, brand_voice.md, brand_visual.md, brand_hooks.md. If any are missing, stop and send the user to /postkit-setup. Don't read brand state from Claude Code internal memory.
3. theme.css at the project root — palette, tokens, component classes.
4. Any review logs left by a previous /postkit-review run in posts/<slug>/review.md — don't repeat findings the user already addressed.

Read all slide files, post.json, and every caption*.md file in the post folder before forming opinions. Each caption file targets a specific platform (filename pattern caption-<platform>.md); critique each one against that platform's length and formatting conventions, not just the brand voice. Flag a caption that ignores its platform's norms (e.g. a LinkedIn-length caption saved as caption-x.md, or hashtag spam on LinkedIn) as HIGH.

Alt text check. Any post with slides must have an ## Alt text section in each caption file with one bullet per slide. Flag missing alt text as HIGH (accessibility regression). Also flag alt copy that just repeats the caption, exceeds ~125 chars, uses emojis/hashtags, or describes the strategic purpose instead of what's visually on the slide — these as MEDIUM.

Three lenses, one pass

Do all three in the same response. Don't spawn sub-agents.

1. Strategy

• Hook strength. Does slide 1 stop a thumb in <1s? Is it specific, or generic enough to belong to any account?
• Angle. Is this the most compelling framing (myth-bust vs. listicle vs. story vs. hot take)?
• Format fit. Right slide count? Too much padding, or too rushed?
• Value arc. Does each slide build on the previous? Any filler?
• Audience fit. Will the segment in brand_audience.md actually care? Right level?
• Goal alignment. Does the CTA match the primary outcome in brand_goals.md?

2. Copy

• CTA strength. Specific, urgent, actionable? Does the reader know why to act?
• Word economy. Any sentence that can shrink without losing meaning?
• Slide transitions. Do slide endings push the reader to swipe?
• Emotional triggers. Does the copy hit a real feeling, or play it safe?
• Tone consistency. Does every slide match the voice in brand_voice.md? Flag anything that drifts corporate / cutesy / jargon-heavy.
• AI-voice tells. Flag every instance of the patterns below as HIGH (they break the illusion that a human wrote this):
  • Em dashes (—) used as a pause or aside. Propose a period, comma, or line break.
  • "Not X, it's Y" / "X, not Y" contrast rhetoric. Propose a direct positive claim.
  • Filler openers: "Here's the thing,", "Let me be clear,", "The truth is,", "Look,", "At the end of the day,".
  • Marketing superlatives: "game-changer", "seamless", "elegant", "beautifully", "transformative".
  • Rhythmic tricolons ("bigger, better, faster") and parallel 3-item structures when the user's brand voice doesn't call for them.
  • Rhetorical-question hooks unless brand_voice.md explicitly allows them.

3. Design

• Layout balance. Content distributed well? Breathing room?
• Whitespace. Padding/margin generous? Nothing crammed against edges?
• Visual rhythm. Do slides alternate colors/layouts enough to avoid monotony?
• Typography hierarchy. Headings vs. body vs. accents clearly differentiated?
• Text density. Any slide that reads as a wall of text for a 2-second scan?
• Color usage. Palette followed? Colors serve hierarchy/emphasis, not noise?
• Brand consistency. Radii, spacing, component classes match theme.css?

You're reading HTML/CSS source, not rendered PNGs. Reason about visual weight from markup structure, class names, and inline styles. If you genuinely can't tell without seeing pixels, ask the user to run /postkit-render first and describe what they see, or check the posts/<slug>/output/ folder if PNGs already exist there.

Output

Return one structured report:

## /postkit-review — posts/<slug>

### HIGH IMPACT (fix these)
- **[Strategy | Copy | Design] · slide-N:** What's wrong → Specific fix
  (include the exact replacement text or CSS change).

### MEDIUM (consider)
- [Observation]

### LOW (logged)
- [Observation]

### Verdict
[REVISE | APPROVED]  — one-line summary.

APPROVED = zero HIGH items. REVISE otherwise.

After the report, offer to save it to posts/<slug>/review.md so the next review skips addressed items.

Important

• Don't touch slide HTML. Suggest, don't edit.
• Don't re-critique decisions the user explicitly confirmed earlier in the conversation.
• Skip /postkit-render unless the user asks — this is a source-level review.