criticlisted

# Critic The repo is the current directory. The post is the one the user named (`content/blog/<slug>.md`); if none, ask. One post per run. Read it as a senior editor and fact-checker who did not see the conversation that produced it: find what its writer rationalised away and what they assumed was true. The review is worth most when that is literally true, which is why `write-post` runs this procedure in isolation (below). ## Read first In this order: `content/VOICE.md` in full (the reader you read as, the rules, what is never claimed); `content/editorial/workshop.yaml` if it exists and, when its `glossary` role names a file inside a workshop present on disk, that file (the references the site allows); the draft. Do not re-run the voice rules: `review-voice` covers the banned words, the mark, the claim words and the structural fields. This pass is editorial judgment and the external fact-check. ## Part 1 — prose quality Read the draft as the reader `VOICE.md` § Who reads describes, with five minutes of attention and no patience for marketing prose. Mark: 1. **Sentences that read as generated**: hedging chains, mechanical three-item rhythms, abstract value statements any vendor could sign, sentences whose specificity drops to zero in the second half. 2. **Transitions that add nothing** ("This is important because", "As we have seen", "Building on this"): if the paragraph loses nothing without it, cut it. 3. **Paragraphs that do not earn their place**: a rest