Editorial & Tone Review
Run an editorial review on a piece of content for clarity, correctness, and brand voice, then produce a line-edit report and a clean revised version. First scopes the audience, purpose, and voice/style rules and locks an editorial checklist (grammar and spelling, clarity and concision, consistent terminology, active voice, reading level, tone match, scannability, and CTA strength), then reviews the copy line-by-line against those rules marking every issue with a suggested rewrite, then writes a report of categorized edits plus a clean revised draft. Use this for a copy review, editorial pass, proofreading, line edit, tone/voice review, or tightening writing — it returns specific tracked edits with rewrites and a polished final draft rather than 'tighten this up'.
Steps
Entry step: scope. Each step names the specialist role it wants; the full working prompt is expandable.
- Scope the editorial reviewreviewerentry
lock audience, purpose, voice, and an edit checklist
Show working prompt
Step 1: Read the content and identify the audience, the purpose (inform / persuade / convert / instruct), and the desired voice/tone (e.g. friendly-expert, formal, playful) — infer from any style guide or sample if none is given. Step 2: Write an editorial acceptance-criteria checklist covering: grammar/spelling/punctuation correctness, clarity (no ambiguous or convoluted sentences), concision (cut filler, redundancy, hedging), consistent terminology and capitalization, active voice and strong verbs, an appropriate reading level for the audience, tone matching the target voice, scannability (headings, short paragraphs, lists where helpful), and CTA/heading strength where applicable. Step 3: For each item state the pass condition for THIS piece (e.g. 'reading level ~grade 8', 'product name always rendered as <X>'). Step 4: Note the target word-count direction if length matters. Write the audience/purpose/voice + checklist to `write_task_note` AND `notes/scope.md`. No edits yet.
- Line-edit the copycopywriter
mark every issue with a concrete rewrite
Show working prompt
Step 1: Read the copy line-by-line. Step 2: For EACH checklist dimension, flag specific issues quoting the offending text and giving a concrete REWRITE, not just a note — e.g. 'ORIGINAL: "We are committed to leveraging synergies" → SUGGESTED: "We connect your tools so they work together"'. Step 3: Categorize each edit: Correctness (grammar/spelling/fact), Clarity, Concision, Consistency, Voice/Tone, or Structure/Scannability. Step 4: Check global consistency: terminology, capitalization, oxford-comma and number style, heading parallelism. Step 5: Assess the overall tone against the target and note where it drifts. Step 6: Track the substantive vs trivial edits so the report can prioritize. Good looks like: every flagged line has a ready-to-paste rewrite. Stage the edit list to `write_task_note`. Do not write the final report/draft yet.
- Write the edit report + clean draftcopywriter
categorized edits plus a revised draft
Show working prompt
Step 1: Open `copy-review.md` and write a 2-3 sentence editorial summary: overall clarity/voice verdict and the top theme to fix. Step 2: Add an '## Edits' section grouped by category (Correctness, Clarity, Concision, Consistency, Voice, Structure); each entry shows the ORIGINAL and the SUGGESTED rewrite. Step 3: Add a '## Revised draft' section containing the FULL clean copy with every accepted edit applied — this is the shippable version. Step 4: Note any factual claims you could not verify. The revised draft must read smoothly end-to-end and match the target voice; every edit must include a concrete rewrite — no 'reword this'. On a loop-back, fix only the named gaps without losing good edits. `write_task_note` the report path and the count of edits by category.
- Evaluatereviewer
Grade the deliverable against every acceptance criterion. All pass → finish; any fail → loop back and fix the gap.
Show working prompt
Open `copy-review.md` and grade it against the scope checklist. Check EACH criterion and write PASS/FAIL with a one-line reason: (1) every editorial dimension was assessed; (2) each edit includes the original AND a concrete rewrite; (3) edits are categorized; (4) a full revised draft is present and reads cleanly end-to-end; (5) the revised draft matches the target voice and reading level; (6) terminology/consistency was checked globally; (7) no vague 'tighten this' filler. Read the revised draft straight through to confirm it is shippable. If any criterion fails, name the exact gap and loop back. Then route — this is the whole point of the loop: - **Every criterion PASSES →** call `advance_task_step({ ref, stepId: "evaluate", next: "finish" })`. - **Any criterion FAILS →** write the specific gaps to notes, then call `advance_task_step({ ref, stepId: "evaluate", next: "report" })` to loop back. The builder fixes exactly those gaps. Never route to `finish` while any criterion is unmet. The build phase's completion gate already blocked a grossly-incomplete deliverable; your job is the judgment an automated check cannot make (does it actually work, read well, look right). After ~3 unproductive loops, stop and report DONE_WITH_CONCERNS so the user can step in. - Finishdeveloper
All acceptance criteria met. Stamp a short summary and report DONE.
Show working prompt
Every acceptance criterion passed. Write a one-paragraph DONE summary to task notes via `write_task_note`: what was built, the deliverable path(s), and a one-line confirmation that each criterion is met. Then report DONE.
Triggers
Phrases that suggest this craftbook to a crew.
- copy review
- editorial review
- proofread this
- line edit this
- review the tone
- tighten this writing
Source
View this craftbook on GitHub · MIT license