gh-rpiplewar-shipfaster-content-gen/commands/content-critic-review.md

description

description
Review scored content and provide improvement suggestions

Critic Review

Mission

Review all scored content variations, provide specific improvement suggestions for pieces scoring 15-25/30, and filter out content below quality threshold (<20/30).

Process

Follow the Critic agent instructions (agents/critic.md) to:

1. Read scored content from content-drafts.md
2. Evaluate quality (factual accuracy, framework alignment, engagement potential)
3. Generate critiques with strengths, weaknesses, and specific suggestions
4. Apply Pass/Fail verdicts (< 20 = FAIL, ≥ 20 = PASS)
5. Update content-drafts.md with critique sections

Execution Steps

Step 1: Read Scored Content

Input Source: content-drafts.md with complete scores

Focus On:

• Content scoring 15-25/30 (improvement candidates)
• Content scoring < 20/30 (automatic FAIL)
• Content scoring 20+/30 (PASS but optimize)

Step 2: Quality Evaluation

For each piece, assess:

Factual Accuracy (Non-Negotiable)

• All claims verifiable against themes-memory.md source stories
• No hallucinated examples or fictional scenarios
• Numbers, dates, names match source material

If Inaccurate: Mark FAIL regardless of score

Framework Alignment

• Gap Selling: Problem clear, emotional stakes present, solution evident
• Biases: Claimed biases actually activated
• Decision Framework: Hook strong, value clear, CTA present

Engagement Potential

• First line grabs attention
• Logical flow
• Emotional resonance
• Actionable insight
• Platform-appropriate style

Step 3: Generate Structured Critique

For each piece:

**Critic Notes:**

**Strengths:**
- {Specific element that works, with reference}
- {Second strength}
- {Third strength}

**Weaknesses:**
- {Specific issue with explanation}
- {Second weakness and why it matters}
- {Third weakness}

**Suggestions:**
- {Concrete edit: "Change X to Y because..."}
- {Second suggestion with specific line reference}
- {Third suggestion}

**Verdict:** {✅ PASS or ❌ FAIL}

Step 4: Apply Pass/Fail Logic

FAIL if ANY of these true:

• Total score < 20/30
• Factually inaccurate
• Hallucinated information
• Gap Selling < 6/10 (problem unclear)
• Decision Framework < 6/10 (weak hook or no value)

PASS if ALL of these true:

• Total score ≥ 20/30
• Factually accurate
• All frameworks adequately addressed
• Engagement potential present

Step 5: Update content-drafts.md

Add critique section after scores for each variation.

Validation Checklist

Before marking review complete:

• All scored content reviewed
• Factual accuracy verified for each piece
• Specific strengths identified (3 per piece)
• Specific weaknesses identified (3 per piece)
• Actionable suggestions provided (3 per piece)
• Pass/Fail verdicts assigned
• content-drafts.md updated with critiques

Common Improvement Patterns

If Gap Selling Low (< 6/10):

• Make problem more explicit
• Increase emotional stakes
• Strengthen future-state value

If Bias Score Low (< 5):

• Add before/after structure (Contrast)
• Include numbers/credentials (Authority)
• Reference crowd behavior (Social Proof)
• Give free value (Reciprocation)

If Decision Framework Low (< 6/10):

• Strengthen opening hook
• Add actionable insight
• Make CTA explicit and low-friction

Example Output

✅ Critic Review Complete

Variations Reviewed: 25

Pass/Fail Distribution:
- PASS: 21 pieces (84%)
- FAIL: 4 pieces (16%)

Common Strengths:
- Strong vulnerability/authenticity (18/25 pieces)
- Effective contrast before/after structure (15/25 pieces)
- Clear problem statements (20/25 pieces)

Common Weaknesses:
- CTAs often philosophical rather than actionable (12/25 pieces)
- Emotional stakes could be more vivid (8/25 pieces)
- Some hooks predictable (6/25 pieces)

Top Recommendations:
1. Convert philosophical CTAs to specific actions
2. Amplify stakes language for emotional impact
3. Test open-loop questions vs bold statements for hooks

Output File: content-drafts.md (updated with critiques)

Next Step: Run /content-select-best to choose top piece

Error Handling

If critique seems subjective:

• Reference specific lines and concrete issues
• Justify suggestions with framework principles
• Avoid "I think" or "I feel" language

If uncertain about factual accuracy:

• Cross-check against themes-memory.md source stories
• Flag for user verification
• Mark as uncertain rather than guessing

Next Steps

After successful review:

1. Review critiques in content-drafts.md
2. Run /content-select-best to select top piece
3. Or continue with full pipeline if running /content-full-pipeline