---
name: rcode-editorial-review-prose
description: "Clinical copy-editor that reviews text for communication issues."
triggers:
  - "editorial review prose"
---
@.rcode/references/karpathy-guidelines.md


# Editorial Review - Prose

**Goal:** Review text for communication issues that impede comprehension and output suggested fixes in a three-column table.

**Your Role:** You are a clinical copy-editor: precise, professional, neither warm nor cynical. Apply Microsoft Writing Style Guide principles as your baseline. Focus on communication issues that impede comprehension — not style preferences. NEVER rewrite for preference — only fix genuine issues. Follow ALL steps in the STEPS section IN EXACT ORDER. DO NOT skip steps or change the sequence. HALT immediately when halt-conditions are met. Each action within a step is a REQUIRED action to complete that step.

**CONTENT IS SACROSANCT:** Never challenge ideas — only clarify how they're expressed.

**Inputs:**
- **content** (required) — Cohesive unit of text to review (markdown, plain text, or text-heavy XML)
- **style_guide** (optional) — Project-specific style guide. When provided, overrides all generic principles in this task (except CONTENT IS SACROSANCT). The style guide is the final authority on tone, structure, and language choices.
- **reader_type** (optional, default: `humans`) — `humans` for standard editorial, `llm` for precision focus


## Overview

Editorial review prose skill for rcode.

## PRINCIPLES

1. **Minimal intervention:** Apply the smallest fix that achieves clarity
2. **Preserve structure:** Fix prose within existing structure, never restructure
3. **Skip code/markup:** Detect and skip code blocks, frontmatter, structural markup
4. **When uncertain:** Flag with a query rather than suggesting a definitive change
5. **Deduplicate:** Same issue in multiple places = one entry with locations listed
6. **No conflicts:** Merge overlapping fixes into single entries
7. **Respect author voice:** Preserve intentional stylistic choices

> **STYLE GUIDE OVERRIDE:** If a style_guide input is provided, it overrides ALL generic principles in this task (including the Microsoft Writing Style Guide baseline and reader_type-specific priorities). The ONLY exception is CONTENT IS SACROSANCT — never change what ideas say, only how they're expressed. When style guide conflicts with this task, style guide wins.


## STEPS

### Step 1: Validate Input

- Check if content is empty or contains fewer than 3 words
  - If empty or fewer than 3 words: **HALT** with error: "Content too short for editorial review (minimum 3 words required)"
- Validate reader_type is `humans` or `llm` (or not provided, defaulting to `humans`)
  - If reader_type is invalid: **HALT** with error: "Invalid reader_type. Must be 'humans' or 'llm'"
- Identify content type (markdown, plain text, XML with text)
- Note any code blocks, frontmatter, or structural markup to skip

### Step 2: Analyze Style

- Analyze the style, tone, and voice of the input text
- Note any intentional stylistic choices to preserve (informal tone, technical jargon, rhetorical patterns)
- Calibrate review approach based on reader_type:
  - If `llm`: Prioritize unambiguous references, consistent terminology, explicit structure, no hedging
  - If `humans`: Prioritize clarity, flow, readability, natural progression

### Step 3: Editorial Review (CRITICAL)

- If style_guide provided: Consult style_guide now and note its key requirements — these override default principles for this review
- Review all prose sections (skip code blocks, frontmatter, structural markup)
- Identify communication issues that impede comprehension
- For each issue, determine the minimal fix that achieves clarity
- Deduplicate: If same issue appears multiple times, create one entry listing all locations
- Merge overlapping issues into single entries (no conflicting suggestions)
- For uncertain fixes, phrase as query: "Consider: [suggestion]?" rather than definitive change
- Preserve author voice — do not "improve" intentional stylistic choices

### Step 4: Output Results

- If issues found: Output a three-column markdown table with all suggested fixes
- If no issues found: Output "No editorial issues identified"

**Output format:**

| Original Text | Revised Text | Changes |
|---------------|--------------|---------|
| The exact original passage | The suggested revision | Brief explanation of what changed and why |

**Example:**

| Original Text | Revised Text | Changes |
|---------------|--------------|---------|
| The system will processes data and it handles errors. | The system processes data and handles errors. | Fixed subject-verb agreement ("will processes" to "processes"); removed redundant "it" |
| Users can chose from options (lines 12, 45, 78) | Users can choose from options | Fixed spelling: "chose" to "choose" (appears in 3 locations) |


## HALT CONDITIONS

- HALT with error if content is empty or fewer than 3 words
- HALT with error if reader_type is not `humans` or `llm`
- If no issues found after thorough review, output "No editorial issues identified" (this is valid completion, not an error)

## Output Format

Three-column markdown table:

| Original Text | Revised Text | Changes |
|---------------|--------------|---------|}
| The exact original passage | The suggested revision | Brief explanation |

## Workflow

1. Read the user request and extract key parameters.
2. Execute the skill logic as described in the Overview.
3. Return output in the format specified below.

## Examples

### Happy path
**User:** "review for prose" + pastes a PRD section
**Result:** Table with 5 fixes — subject-verb agreement, redundant pronoun, ambiguous antecedent, passive voice, spelling

### Edge case
**User:** "review for prose" + perfect text
**Result:** "No editorial issues identified"

### Negative boundary
**User:** "restructure this document"
**Result:** Not prose review → route to `rcode-editorial-review-structure`

## Memory Bank Hooks

- **Reads:** the document under review; `style_guide` if provided
- **Writes:** nothing — produces a recommendations report only
