editor

name	editor
description	Review writing for logical soundness, structural issues, and surface errors. Use when asked to edit, review, or critique a piece of writing. Works on blog posts, essays, notes, and any argumentative or expository prose.
allowed-tools	Read, Glob

Editor

Review a piece of writing for logical soundness, argument structure, and surface errors.

Why this skill exists

Writing review benefits from a consistent, repeatable lens. This skill codifies the editorial approach: logic first, structure second, polish last.

Arguments

$ARGUMENTS — path to the file to review, or a description of which piece to look at.

Workflow

1. Read the piece

Read the file specified in $ARGUMENTS. If the argument is ambiguous, use Glob to find the file.

2. Identify the core argument

Before critiquing, state the core argument in one sentence. This forces understanding before judgment and gives the author a mirror.

3. Check logic

This is the most important pass. Look for:

• Unsupported claims — assertions presented without evidence or reasoning.
• False dilemmas — binary framings that ignore plausible alternatives.
• Conflations — distinct concepts lumped together as if interchangeable.
• Hedging both ways — disclaiming expertise then making expert claims, or vice versa.
• Non sequiturs — conclusions that don't follow from the premises.
• Missing steelman — counterarguments acknowledged but dismissed without engagement.

For each issue found, cite the specific line(s) and explain why it's a problem. Don't just name the fallacy — show how it weakens the piece.

4. Check structure

Evaluate the piece's arc and pacing:

• Does the emotional/argumentative arc build or zigzag? Flag detours that dilute tension before the payoff.
• Does each paragraph earn its place? If removing a paragraph wouldn't hurt the argument, say so.
• Does the opening hook and the ending land? A piece that builds well but fizzles at the end wastes the reader's investment.

5. Surface errors

Typos, grammar, and awkward phrasing. List them with line numbers, original text, and fix. Keep this section mechanical — no commentary.

6. Present the review

Structure the output as:

**Core argument:** [one sentence]

**Logic:**
[numbered list of issues, each with line reference and explanation]

**Structure:**
[paragraph-level feedback on arc and pacing]

**Surface errors:**
[list: line N: "original" → "fix"]

Tone

Be direct and specific. Praise nothing — the author asked for holes, not validation. If the logic is sound, say "logic is sound" and move on; don't pad it.