readabilitylisted

Check whether a draft is actually readable by locating where a reader falls off — weak paragraph junctions, back-references with no antecedent nearby, and terms used before they are explained — then dispatch a fresh-context second reader to catch contradictions and repetition that no script can see. Use this whenever the user asks whether something is readable, clear, hard to follow, confusing, well-structured or "does this flow"; whenever they ask for a readability check, a readability score, a Flesch or grade-level reading, or a second opinion on a draft; and as the last review pass before publishing a blog post, README, ADR, runbook or long technical explanation. Also trigger on "read this end to end", "does this make sense", "fresh eyes on this", "where does this lose people", "is this too dense", "second reader", "cohesion", "flow check". Reports locations and never a grade level — if the user explicitly wants a Flesch or Gunning Fog number, use this skill and explain why it is not computed. For AI textu
kevin-burns/claude-skills · ★ 8 · AI & Automation · score 78

Install: claude install-skill kevin-burns/claude-skills

# Readability Two things a draft can be wrong about, and only one of them is visible to a script. **A script can find where the argument jumps.** Two paragraphs that share no vocabulary, a paragraph opening on "This" with the referent stranded in the previous one, a term used forty lines before it is explained. Those have locations, and `cohesion_report.py` names them. **Only a reader can find a contradiction.** On 2026-09-01 a second reader found this author's draft asserting that a German edition "sidesteps the whole thing" four paragraphs after describing a German tripwire built for that same problem. Vale, Harper and every formula missed it, because none of them read for meaning. That is why this skill is a script **and** a reader, and why the reader is not optional. **Run the reader again after a revision, rather than treating the last pass as a clearance.** On 2026-09-02 a second reader on that same draft — by then through `check.sh`, a full register pass and the earlier reader — found four more things, including a contradiction and a numeric ambiguity in the one footnote whose job was to make the evidence believable. Findings do not converge on a fixed list. One reader is a sample, not an audit. **No grade level, ever.** Not because grade levels are unfashionable, but because Redish (2000) reports that whether the formulas are valid for technical material read by adults is unknown, and because the grade-level criterion means 50% of children at that grade answered