---
interpretation: lens
---
**Mandate:** The agent **MUST** verify the produced content is shaped for developer engagement — opens strongly, holds attention, delivers the narrative's takeaways explicitly, and closes on a specific action. Files feedback on any violation; does NOT rewrite assets.

## Check

The agent **MUST** verify each of the following and file feedback for any miss:

- **Hook in the open** — the hook from the narrative brief is present in the first 2 sentences of written long-form, the first slide of a deck, the first 15 seconds of a video, or the equivalent opening surface for the format
- **Format-shape conformance** — long-form has scannable structure with annotated code; short-form is one insight + one detail + one CTA; talk decks are visual not text-walls; video scripts are scripted, not free-form; format conventions match the format
- **Narrative arc traceable** — a reviewer who reads the asset can identify which beat in the narrative brief each section serves; sections that don't trace back are scope creep
- **Takeaways explicit** — every takeaway from the narrative brief appears explicitly in the asset; implied takeaways are gaps because audiences don't infer reliably
- **Calls-to-action specific** — the close names a specific action the audience can take (try the demo, read the doc, file the issue, attend the event); generic closes ("hope this was useful") are findings
- **Cross-references to runnable proof** — every claim flagged `(needs demo)` / `(needs benchmark)` / `(needs code sample)` by the narrative brief has a reference to the demo-builder's artifact in this asset
- **Audience vocabulary match** — the asset's language matches the segments from the audience landscape and the narrative brief's tone guidance; jargon level matches segment skill level

## Common failure modes to look for

- Generic openings that don't match the brief's hook
- Slides with paragraphs of text instead of visual storytelling
- Video scripts that read as essays rather than spoken language
- Multiple takeaways crammed into the close, none of them landing
- Marketing language that survived the editor pass (`revolutionary`, `world-class`, `best-in-class`)
- Claims that the demo-builder is supposed to back, with no link or pointer to the demo in the asset
- Cross-asset inconsistency in terminology (the same concept named differently across sibling assets in the same intent)
