writing-reviewlisted

# Writing Review One job: tell Shane what is wrong with a piece, biggest problem first, without changing a word of it. ## The rule that makes this skill work **Never produce a replacement draft.** The moment you write a competing version, the review stops being a diagnosis and becomes a negotiation about your prose. Shane invokes this when he wants to decide, not to be handed a rewrite. If he wants the edit, he will run `humanize`. Also: never edit the file, never save a new file, never stage anything. The review is reported in chat and nowhere else. ## The verdict vocabulary Use exactly these four, and no others: | Verdict | Meaning | |---|---| | `keep` | A pattern is present but earned, or the medium requires it. State what earns it. | | `revise` | The draft already contains enough material for an honest improvement. | | `ask-author` | The fix needs a fact, mechanism, example, or experience only Shane has. Ask for exactly that. | | `cut` | The passage only repeats, performs, or reaches for a close. | `ask-author` is what earns this skill its keep. It is the alternative to inventing the missing detail, which is the single easiest way to damage a draft while believing you improved it. A review with four `ask-author` findings is worth more than one with four clever rewrites. ## Order of work Diagnose in this order. Do not jump to sentences before the earlier layers are settled: a sentence-level finding on a piece with a substance problem is noise. 1. **Truth and sco