triple-persona-reviewlisted

# Triple Persona Review ## Overview Most draft-review feedback fails because it averages. Asking one editorial agent returns smoothed-good prose; asking one reader returns one perspective. Both produce *less* signal than they look like they produce. The triple-persona pattern produces more signal by deliberately choosing three readers whose **interests do not align**, dispatching them in parallel, and treating the *contradictions* in their feedback as the most useful data. If Persona A loves a paragraph and Persona B finds it preachy, that paragraph is a *deliberate audience tradeoff* — knowing which side to optimise for is the editorial decision. Outputs: - Three independent persona reviews, each in a rigid structured format. - A **consolidated editing report** with consensus issues, tradeoff points, outlier flags, and prioritised edits — handed to the author or to whatever skill produced the draft. The persona library at `personas/` grows over time. After each round, calibrate the personas that returned soft, aligned, or off-target feedback. ## When to Use Use when: - A draft is structurally complete but you want pressure-test feedback before shipping. - The author wants editorial feedback that isn't averaged-good — distinct readers with distinct biases. - The piece has multiple plausible audiences and the author wants to see how each will read it. - After a major rewrite — to check whether the rewrite serves all readers or only one. - A skill like `crafting-portfoli