review-chapterlisted
Install: claude install-skill petar-djukic/writing-skills
# review-chapter
Six critics read the draft. The first three test whether it works as a
technical book — clarity, honesty, pedagogy. The second three test whether it
works as writing — logic, hook, story. Each returns a verdict in its own
format, quoting the passage it is judging, so the author can argue with a
specific line rather than a mood.
The critics are defined in [references/critics.md](./references/critics.md).
## What this skill is not
It makes no judgment a machine can already make. Do not report forbidden
terms, missing chapter apparatus, unresolved citations, or figures that are
never referenced from the prose — those belong to the book's own checker
(`mage audit` in a repository that has one) and to
[filter-tells](../filter-tells/SKILL.md) and
[tighten-style](../tighten-style/SKILL.md) here. If you notice one in passing,
name the tool that owns it and move on.
What is left is the part that needs a reader: whether the chapter is any good.
## Process
1. **Read the draft in full** before judging any part of it. A hook verdict
written from the first page and a pedagogy verdict written from the
headings are both worthless.
2. **Read the book's own rules, if the repository has them.** Look for
`docs/constitutions/voice.yaml` and `docs/constitutions/argument.yaml`
alongside the draft, and for the chapter's SRD under `docs/srd/`. A chapter
is judged against the register and the claim discipline its own book
declared — not against a generic stan