Stats
Actions
Tags
Help us improve
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
From draft-review-kit
Reviews drafts for big-picture issues: argument, structure, stakes, and payoff. Runs subsection summary and pitch diagnostic tests to surface structural gaps.
npx claudepluginhub everyinc/draft-review-kit --plugin draft-review-kitHow this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/draft-review-kit:dev-editThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Review a draft for big-picture issues: argument, structure, stakes, and payoff. Focus on whether the piece *works*, not whether the sentences are polished.
Performs pass-1 structural review of a Substack essay draft — argument flow, out-of-order moves, buried topic sentences, missing pivots, weak signposting, paragraph-logic issues. Use when reviewing a draft's macro-structure before addressing voice, when a draft meanders, or when the user asks whether the argument lands.
Analyses a draft for logical sequence, narrative coherence, and transitions, then reports structure breaks with specific locations and fixes.
Diagnoses and repairs structural problems in non-fiction, essays, and documents — wrong order, buried lead, wrong ending, proportion errors.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Review a draft for big-picture issues: argument, structure, stakes, and payoff. Focus on whether the piece works, not whether the sentences are polished.
Questions to consider (not all apply to every piece):
| Area | Questions |
|---|---|
| Structure | Does each section earn its place? Does the order make sense? |
| Argument | Is it logically clear and supported? Any holes? |
| Evidence | What backs each major claim? Personal experience? A linked study? A specific example? Where is the support thin or missing? |
| Outsider read | If a reader who doesn't know the writer and doesn't read Every picked this up cold, what would they push back on? What would feel like in-group shorthand? |
| Opening | Does the hook work? Is the thesis clear? Is there a promise? |
| Stakes | Why should the reader care? Why does the writer care? |
| Payoff | Does the piece deliver on what it promises? |
Use judgment. A personal essay doesn't need argument scrutiny. A how-to doesn't need stakes analysis. Focus on what matters for this piece.
Two diagnostic tests for whether the piece holds together. Run both when the structure feels off — or proactively for any piece with subheads.
For each subsection: write a one-sentence summary of what it argues. Then re-read the subsection. Anything not in service of that one sentence — cut it.
When invoked by the agent:
This test catches: orphaned good lines that belong elsewhere, padding from earlier drafts, two arguments tangled inside one subsection.
If someone stopped the writer in a hallway, could they explain the piece in 20 seconds? Now compare that pitch to the thesis/promise as stated in the intro.
When invoked by the agent:
If the pitch and the intro don't match, one of them is wrong. Usually the intro drifted during revision and needs to catch up to what the piece became.
For each major claim, ask: what is this backed by?
| Support type | Verdict |
|---|---|
| Personal experience the writer lived through | Strong — let it stand |
| A linked study, dataset, or named source | Strong — let it stand |
| An expert quote or named practitioner | Strong — let it stand |
| A specific named example (company, person, moment) | Strong — let it stand |
| "Studies show…" / "experts agree…" / "many people say…" without specifics | Weak — flag |
| Only the writer's authority, when the writer isn't established on this specific thing | Weak — flag |
| Nothing — assertion floats free | Weak — flag |
It's fine to write about something the writer isn't an expert in. It's not fine to make claims without support and rely on confident tone to carry them. Flag floating claims explicitly — the writer can add evidence, soften the claim, or remove it.
## Developmental Edit Report
### Opening
🔴 **Critical:** [Issue]
[Why it matters]
🟡 **Consider:** [Issue]
[Explanation]
### [Section Name]
🟢 **Minor:** [Issue]
[Explanation]
---
Where would you like to start?
Severity:
## Quick Dev Edit
**Working well:** [2-3 things]
**Needs attention:**
1. [Main issue + why]
2. [Second issue + why]
**Overall:** [Ready for line edit / Needs another pass / Major restructure needed]
Use quick assessment for shorter pieces, time pressure, or when invoked as part of a composition.
After the report:
Don't force resolution of every issue. The writer decides what matters.
When invoked programmatically:
[Skill-specific lessons will be added here as they're captured]