reviewing-article

star 38

Multi-pass article review covering logic, evidence, flow, and polish. Systematic quality assurance before publication.

binbinao By binbinao schedule Updated 3/2/2026
play_arrow Run Skill in Manus View GitHub

name: reviewing-article description: "Multi-pass article review covering logic, evidence, flow, and polish. Systematic quality assurance before publication."

Reviewing Articles

Overview

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:

  • Review log: docs/writing/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-review.md
  • Final article: docs/writing/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-final.md

Four-Pass Review Process

digraph 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";
}

Pass 1: Logic Check

Focus: Is the argument coherent and sound?

Questions to ask:

  • Does the introduction clearly state the core message?
  • Does each section support the core message?
  • Do conclusions follow logically from premises?
  • Are there any logical fallacies?
  • Are there contradictions between sections?
  • Does the conclusion tie everything together?

Common issues:

  • Thesis buried or unclear
  • Sections don't support main argument
  • Circular reasoning
  • Non-sequiturs
  • Contradictory claims

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

Pass 2: Evidence Check

Focus: Are claims properly supported?

Questions to ask:

  • Does every claim have supporting evidence?
  • Are sources credible and recent?
  • Are statistics used correctly?
  • Are examples relevant and compelling?
  • Are quotes accurate and in context?
  • Is the evidence sufficient for the claim?

Common issues:

  • Unsupported assertions
  • Outdated statistics
  • Cherry-picked data
  • Misused quotes
  • Weak examples
  • Missing citations

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

Pass 3: Flow Check

Focus: Does the article read smoothly?

Questions to ask:

  • Do paragraphs flow within sections?
  • Are transitions between sections smooth?
  • Is pacing appropriate? (not rushed/dragging)
  • Do sentence lengths vary?
  • Is paragraph length appropriate? (2-4 sentences)
  • Does the reading experience feel natural?

Common issues:

  • Abrupt topic changes
  • Repetitive sentence structures
  • Overly long paragraphs
  • Missing transitions
  • Pacing issues (too slow or too fast)

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

Pass 4: Polish

Focus: Grammar, spelling, formatting, style

Questions to ask:

  • Any grammar/spelling errors?
  • Is formatting consistent? (headers, lists, emphasis)
  • Is tone consistent throughout?
  • Are there unnecessary words? (very, really, just)
  • Active voice used where appropriate?
  • Are sentences clear and concise?

Common issues:

  • Typos and grammar errors
  • Inconsistent formatting
  • Passive voice overuse
  • Wordy sentences
  • Filler words
  • Style inconsistencies

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

Review Log Template

# [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

Applying Fixes

After generating review log:

  1. Present review summary to user
  2. For each critical issue:
    • Show current text
    • Explain problem
    • Propose fix
    • Get approval
  3. Batch minor/moderate fixes (unless user wants granular control)
  4. Make changes to draft
  5. Save as final version

Final Article Format

---
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]

Review Quality Standards

Good review:

  • Finds real issues, not nitpicks
  • Categorizes by severity accurately
  • Provides actionable fixes
  • Preserves what works well
  • Balances critique with recognition

Warning signs:

  • Only surface-level issues found
  • Contradictory feedback
  • Vague "make it better" notes
  • Excessive nitpicking
  • Missing critical logic flaws

Completion

After saving final article:

**"Review complete! 📝

Review Summary:

  • Critical issues: [X] → Fixed
  • Moderate issues: [X] → Fixed
  • Minor issues: [X] → Fixed

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:

  • Word count: XXXX
  • Reading time: ~X minutes
  • Status: Ready for publication

Would you like me to:

  1. Export to specific format (Medium, WordPress, etc.)
  2. Generate social media snippets
  3. Create summary/abstract
  4. Something else"**

Key Principles

  • Four separate passes - Don't mix concerns
  • Severity matters - Critical blocks publication, minor doesn't
  • Document everything - Review log is valuable reference
  • Fix systematically - Don't ad-hoc it
  • Preserve strengths - Don't over-edit what works
  • Evidence-based critique - Point to specific issues, not feelings
Install via CLI
npx skills add https://github.com/binbinao/document-superpowers --skill reviewing-article
Repository Details
star Stars 38
call_split Forks 12
navigation Branch main
article Path SKILL.md
Occupations
Editors
More from Creator
binbinao
binbinao Explore all skills →