| name | seminar-content-review |
| description | Fact-check BUILT seminar content (FOLK, HIST, BIO, ISTORIO, LIT and subtracks, OES, RUTH) against Wikipedia + Literary RAG + heritage dictionaries. Verifies every factual claim, catches ghost facts / ghost sources / confident fabrication, and runs decolonization + russicism checks. For built module CONTENT — not plans (use plan-review-seminar for plans, content-review for core levels). |
| argument-hint | <track/slug | path to a content file> |
| effort | xhigh |
Seminar Content Review: $ARGUMENTS
Scope: BUILT seminar CONTENT (FOLK, HIST, BIO, ISTORIO, LIT + subtracks, OES, RUTH). For seminar PLANS use /plan-review-seminar; for core-level content use /content-review.
Why this exists (the gap it closes): seminar quality = factual accuracy + decolonization + source grounding — none of which the deterministic linguistic gates (VESUM validity, russicism rate, immersion policy) can measure. A model that sounds scholarly can be confidently fabricating — and the linguistic gates pass it just the same. This reviewer verifies every factual claim against real sources so "sounds authoritative" is never mistaken for "is accurate." (Origin: the 2026-07-04 UK-writing bakeoff ranked a writer #1 for seminars on scholarly tone before any fact-check — audit/2026-07-04-uk-writing-probe/REPORT.md.)
Parse arguments
- Path ending in
.md / .mdx / .txt → a single content file (review it directly).
{track}/{slug} or a bare {slug} → the built module at curriculum/l2-uk-en/{track}/{slug}/module.md (+ its vocabulary.yaml).{track} alone → every built module in that track.
Valid tracks: folk, hist, bio, istorio, lit, lit-drama, lit-essay, lit-doc, lit-crimea, lit-fantastika, lit-hist-fic, lit-humor, lit-war, lit-youth, oes, ruth.
Execute
- Deterministic linguistic backbone FIRST (cheap, cite it): run the module's
python_qg, or for a raw text sample .venv/bin/python -m scripts.audit.probe_uk_writing_score <file> (VESUM validity, russicism rate, immersion). This is NECESSARY but NOT SUFFICIENT — it cannot check facts.
- Then the factual + decolonization layer — the reviewer's real job. Read and follow seminar-content-review-prompt.md: claim extraction → per-claim source verification (Wikipedia + Literary RAG + heritage) → ghost-source / fabrication catch → decolonization scan → output format.
Output path: curriculum/l2-uk-en/{track}/audit/{slug}-content-review.md (or stdout for a raw file). Produce a per-claim verdict table (SUPPORTED / CONTRADICTED / UNATTESTED + source), a factual-accuracy score, a decolonization verdict, and CRITICAL/HIGH issues. REPORT ONLY — do not fix. Reference issue #729.
