5a40b6fdc4
* feat: add OAC package refactor context file - Add comprehensive feature context for OAC package refactor - Document multi-IDE support architecture - Define community component registry (shadcn-like) - Outline flexible configuration system - Detail context file location flexibility - Define 7-phase implementation plan - Include CLI commands reference - Add community publishing guidelines * docs: add OAC refactor quick start guide - Add quick reference for Phase 1 implementation - Include project structure and file locations - Document configuration schema and defaults - Add testing strategy and validation steps - Include development workflow - Reference all related resources * feat: add critical user approval and context resolution systems CRITICAL FEATURES ADDED: 1. User Approval & YOLO Mode - Default: Interactive approval for all file operations - Always asks: local vs global install - Confirms before overwriting files - Shows diffs and file details - YOLO mode (--yolo): Skip confirmations, auto-resolve, report at end - Conflict strategies: ask, skip, overwrite, backup, yolo - Safety: backups, git detection, rollback support, audit log 2. Context Resolution System - Layered context resolution (6 priority levels) - Project override (.oac/context/) - highest priority - Project context (.opencode/context/) - IDE context (.cursor/, .claude/) - Project docs (docs/) - User global (~/.config/oac/context/) - OAC official (~/.config/oac/official/) - lowest priority - Smart resolution based on agent location (global vs local) - preferLocal config option - Context merging strategies - CLI commands for context management - Environment variable overrides - Validation and fallback support 3. Enhanced CLI Commands - All commands support --yolo, --dry-run, --local, --global - Context management: resolve, list, validate, override, sync - Detailed help and examples - Global flags for all commands This ensures users maintain full control over their projects while supporting both local and global workflows with intelligent context resolution. * feat: add component creation wizard and IDE feature parity system NEW FEATURES: 1. Interactive Component Creation - oac create (interactive wizard) - Create agents, skills, contexts, plugins, commands, tools - Template system for scaffolding - Auto-generate tests and boilerplate - Multi-IDE compatibility selection - Size optimization options 2. IDE Feature Parity & Capacity Management (CRITICAL) - Feature support matrix for all IDEs - OpenCode/Claude Code: Full support (all features) - Cursor: Limited (single file, no skills/plugins, 100KB limit) - Windsurf: Partial support - Adaptive installation based on IDE capabilities - Automatic feature filtering and warnings - Component merging for single-file IDEs (Cursor) - Capacity warnings and optimization - IDE-specific profiles 3. Enhanced CLI Commands - oac create [type] - Component creation wizard - oac templates - List available templates - oac compatibility <ide> - Check IDE compatibility - oac ides - List supported IDEs with features - oac ide info <ide> - Show IDE capabilities - oac optimize --for <ide> - Optimize for specific IDE - oac validate --ide <ide> - Validate IDE installation 4. Smart Installation - Detects IDE capabilities - Warns about unsupported features - Auto-filters components - Merges agents for Cursor - Embeds contexts for limited IDEs - Monitors file size limits - Suggests IDE-specific profiles This ensures users can easily create components and OAC gracefully handles different IDE capabilities with clear warnings and automatic optimization. * docs: add critical feedback from parallel agent review CRITICAL FINDINGS: Security Gaps (BLOCKER): - No component signing or verification - No malware/secret scanning - No permission system - Action: Add security layer in Phase 1 Missing Features (CRITICAL): - Discovery (browse, search, trending) - Lockfile for reproducibility - Version conflict management - Interactive onboarding - Progress indicators - Auto-detection for local/global Approaches to Rethink: - Context merging → Use composition instead - Always asking local/global → Auto-detect with smart defaults - Cursor agent merging → Router pattern instead Repository Structure: - Recommended: Monorepo with pnpm workspaces - Packages: core, adapters, registry, security, cli - Benefits: Shared deps, atomic commits, easier testing Community Workflow: - Component submission process - Automated security scanning - Manual review for verification - Moderation system Updated Priorities: - v1.0 MVP: Add 6 critical features (discovery, lockfile, security, etc.) - v1.1: Plugin system, workspace support, marketplace - v2.0: Enterprise features Documentation Needs: - Quick Start (5-minute guide) - CLI Reference (auto-generated) - Recipes/Cookbook - Component Creation Guide - Migration Guide Overall: Plan is 80% solid, needs 20% critical additions before Phase 1 * feat: add comprehensive agent customization and preset system CRITICAL FEATURE: Agent Customization & Personal Presets Problem: - Users want to customize agent prompts for their workflow - Users want to save personal configurations - Updates shouldn't overwrite customizations - Need easy way to view and edit agents Solution: Multi-Layer Customization System Layer 1: View Agent Configuration - oac show agent:openagent (view in pager) - oac edit agent:openagent (open in editor) - oac config show agent:openagent (config only) - oac export agent:openagent (export to file) Layer 2: Create Personal Preset - oac customize agent:openagent (create preset) - Copies to ~/.config/oac/presets/agents/ - Links to base agent for updates - Tracks customizations in metadata Layer 3: Edit Personal Preset - oac edit preset:my-openagent (edit in $EDITOR) - oac customize preset:my-openagent --interactive (wizard) - Auto-backup on save - Track modification history Layer 4: Use Personal Preset - oac use preset:my-openagent (activate) - oac use preset:my-openagent --global (set default) - oac presets list --active (show active) - Switch between presets and base agents Layer 5: Update Management (CRITICAL) - Smart update detection for base agents - Merge strategies: manual, auto-base, auto-merge, locked - Conflict resolution with user prompts - Show diffs before merging - Auto-backup before updates - Preserve user customizations by default Layer 6: Preset Sharing - oac export preset:my-openagent (export) - oac import preset ./preset.md (import) - oac share preset:my-openagent (share with team) - oac publish preset:my-openagent (publish to community) Layer 7: In-Place Editing (Advanced) - oac edit agent:openagent --in-place (risky, warns user) - Creates backup before editing - Warns that updates will overwrite - Recommends preset creation instead Update Strategies: - manual: User reviews every update - auto-base: Auto-update base, keep preset unchanged - auto-merge: Auto-merge, prompt on conflicts - locked: Never update base Configuration: - Preset metadata (.presets.json) - Update strategies per preset - Merge conflict resolution - Backup management - Warning preferences Edge Cases Handled: - In-place edits before updates - Multiple updates behind - Multiple presets for same base - Preset conflicts with IDE - Deleted base agent Best Practices: - Always create presets (safest) - Document customizations - Review updates before merging - Keep backups - Use descriptive names This ensures users can safely customize agents without fear of losing changes on updates, while still benefiting from base agent improvements. * docs: complete comprehensive user scenario analysis (16,014 lines) PLANNING PHASE COMPLETE: Documents Created (9 files, 400KB): - 00-INDEX.md (388 lines) - Planning index and overview - 01-main-plan.md (2,338 lines) - Complete feature specification - 02-quickstart-guide.md (450 lines) - Phase 1 quick reference - 03-critical-feedback.md (599 lines) - Parallel agent review - 04-solo-developer-scenarios.md (2,106 lines) - Individual workflows - 05-team-lead-scenarios.md (3,977 lines) - Team collaboration - 07-content-creator-scenarios.md (2,581 lines) - Non-technical users - 08-open-source-maintainer-scenarios.md (3,575 lines) - Community management - 09-SYNTHESIS.md (1,000+ lines) - Consolidated findings User Personas Analyzed (4/5): ✅ Solo Developer (Primary - 40% market) ✅ Team Lead (Secondary - 30% market) ✅ Content Creator (Emerging - 20% market) ✅ Open Source Maintainer (Future - 5% market) ⏸️ Enterprise Admin (Deferred to v2.0 - 5% market) Key Findings: Solo Developer (Primary User): - Setup must be < 2 minutes or they skip - Preview before committing (try mode) - Safe customization (presets) - Easy rollback/undo - Zero docs reading to start Team Lead (Secondary User): - Lockfile is non-negotiable (oac.lock) - Team configuration (oac-team.json) - Compliance monitoring (90%+ required) - Onboarding: 4-8 hours → 15 minutes (96% reduction) - Staged rollouts for updates Content Creator (Emerging - 20% market): - CLI is intimidating (need GUI wrapper) - Plain language mode (no jargon) - Visual undo (version history) - Templates and examples - Guided setup Open Source Maintainer (Future): - Security scanning pipeline (ClamAV + gitleaks) - Quality gates (70% test coverage) - Review/approval workflow - Deprecation workflow - Sustainability model Critical Additions to MVP: 1. Interactive onboarding wizard (all personas) 2. TUI browser with preview (solo dev, team lead) 3. Lockfile (oac.lock) (team lead) 4. Security scanning (all personas) 5. Try mode (solo dev) 6. Team configuration (team lead) 7. oac doctor health checks (solo dev) 8. Quality gates (maintainer) Market Opportunity: - v1.0: 70% market (solo + team) - v1.1: 90% market (+ content creators with GUI) - v2.0: 100% market (+ enterprise) Recommended Changes: - Expand MVP scope (+2 weeks, 9 weeks total) - Plan v1.1 for content creators (GUI wrapper) - Defer enterprise features to v2.0 - Build community features early (trust) Status: Ready to finalize plan and start implementation Confidence: Very High (95%+) Risk: Low (comprehensive analysis complete) * docs: add comprehensive final review of OAC planning FINAL REVIEW COMPLETE: Overall Assessment: CONDITIONAL GO ✅⚠️ Confidence Level: 85% (High, with conditions) Success Probability: 75% (with modifications) Key Strengths: ✅ Exceptional user research (16,000+ lines, 4 personas) ✅ Clear technical architecture (monorepo, TypeScript, Zod) ✅ Security-first mindset (signing, scanning, verification) ✅ Realistic scope management (v1.0 vs v1.1 vs v2.0) ✅ Comprehensive feature coverage Critical Gaps Identified: ❌ Discovery/Onboarding not in Phase 1 (but P0 in scenarios) ❌ Lockfile not in Phase 2 (but critical for teams) ❌ Security Pipeline not detailed in phases ❌ Progress UI not in Phase 1 (but needed for UX) ❌ Auto-detection not in Phase 1 (but reduces friction) Conditions for Go: 1. Add discovery/onboarding to Phase 1 (+3 days) 2. Add lockfile to Phase 2 (+2 days) 3. Add security pipeline to Phase 1 (+2 days) 4. Add progress UI to Phase 1 (+1 day) 5. Revise timeline: 7 weeks → 9 weeks Critical Action Items (6 days before Phase 1): 1. Add missing features to phases (2 days) 2. Define acceptance criteria (1 day) 3. Define testing strategy (1 day) 4. Design security pipeline (1 day) 5. Create monorepo structure (1 day) Top Risks: 🔴 Timeline Slip (70% probability, high impact) 🟡 Scope Creep (50% probability, high impact) 🟡 Context Merging Complexity (60% probability, medium impact) Recommendation: PROCEED WITH MODIFICATIONS - Complete 6 days of prerequisite work - Extend timeline to 9 weeks - Add missing features to phases - Define acceptance criteria and testing strategy Status: READY TO IMPLEMENT (with modifications) Next Steps: Complete prerequisites → Setup monorepo → Start Phase 1 * feat(context): Standardize context system with navigation, frontmatter, and MVI compliance - Add 77 navigation.md files across all context categories for token-efficient discovery - Standardize frontmatter format on 198+ context files (HTML comment format, 2026-02-15) - Compress 3 oversized guide files applying MVI principle (802 lines removed, 63% reduction) - Add context system analysis and planning artifacts in context-findings/ - Add task management enhancements (stage orchestration, planning subagents) - Document compression techniques and future optimization recommendations Context System Improvements: - All active directories now have navigation.md (200-300 tokens each) - 100% frontmatter compliance with priority/version/date metadata - Improved scannability through MVI compression (compact.md, organizing-context.md, creation.md) - Token efficiency increased for AI agent consumption Planning & Analysis: - Context system implementation plan and simplification analysis - ADR standard proposal and runtime permission architecture - SQLite context design for future scale (deferred until 500+ files) - Context discovery script analysis (rejected in favor of navigation-first) Task Management: - Enhanced task schema with stage orchestration support - New planning subagents (ADR, Architecture, Story Mapping, Prioritization) - Stage orchestrator for multi-stage workflow management - Session context management and lightweight handoff patterns Closes: context-simple-fixes task Ref: context-system-implementation analysis * fix: resolve markdown link validation errors in navigation files - Remove non-existent react-patterns.md link from react/navigation.md - Remove non-existent premium-dark-ui-quick-start.md link from design/navigation.md - Add skip patterns for pre-existing broken links in example/template files - Validation now passes: 215 files validated, 0 errors * fix: resolve all 119 broken markdown links across documentation - Update agent paths to new subagents structure (TestEngineer, ContextScout, etc.) - Fix animation file references (animation-ui.md → animation-components.md) - Update guide references (adding-agent.md → adding-agent-basics.md) - Convert non-existent example paths to placeholder text format - Add skip patterns for intentional example placeholders - Validation now passes: 232 files validated, 0 errors Co-authored-by: CoderAgent <coder@openagents.dev> --------- Co-authored-by: CoderAgent <coder@openagents.dev>
462 lines
9.2 KiB
Markdown
462 lines
9.2 KiB
Markdown
<!-- Context: content-creation/workflows | Priority: medium | Version: 1.0 | Updated: 2026-02-15 -->
|
|
|
|
# Audience Review
|
|
|
|
Process for reviewing content to ensure it resonates with your target audience and achieves its goals.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Pre-Publish Review Checklist
|
|
|
|
### Audience Alignment
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Target audience clearly defined**
|
|
- Who is this specifically for?
|
|
- What's their experience level?
|
|
- What's their current situation?
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Addresses specific pain point**
|
|
- What problem does this solve?
|
|
- Why does this matter to them?
|
|
- Is the pain point clearly stated?
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Delivers promised value**
|
|
- Does it fulfill the hook's promise?
|
|
- Is the value clear and actionable?
|
|
- Would the audience feel satisfied?
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Appropriate depth and complexity**
|
|
- Matches audience's knowledge level?
|
|
- Not too basic or too advanced?
|
|
- Explains necessary concepts?
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Message Clarity
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **One clear main message**
|
|
- What's the single key takeaway?
|
|
- Is it stated clearly?
|
|
- Is it reinforced throughout?
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Logical flow and structure**
|
|
- Does each section connect?
|
|
- Are transitions smooth?
|
|
- Is the progression clear?
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **No jargon without explanation**
|
|
- Technical terms explained?
|
|
- Acronyms spelled out?
|
|
- Industry language appropriate?
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Concrete examples included**
|
|
- Abstract concepts illustrated?
|
|
- Real-world applications shown?
|
|
- Relatable scenarios used?
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Tone and Voice
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Consistent brand voice**
|
|
- Matches established voice?
|
|
- Appropriate formality level?
|
|
- Personality comes through?
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Appropriate emotional tone**
|
|
- Matches audience's emotional state?
|
|
- Empathetic to their situation?
|
|
- Energy level appropriate?
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Language matches audience**
|
|
- Uses their terminology?
|
|
- Avoids alienating language?
|
|
- Culturally appropriate?
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Value Proposition
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Clear benefit stated upfront**
|
|
- What will they gain?
|
|
- Why should they care?
|
|
- Is it compelling?
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Actionable takeaways**
|
|
- Can they apply this immediately?
|
|
- Are steps clear and specific?
|
|
- Is it practical, not just theoretical?
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Unique angle or insight**
|
|
- What makes this different?
|
|
- What's the unique perspective?
|
|
- Why consume this vs. alternatives?
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Call-to-Action
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Clear next step**
|
|
- What should they do now?
|
|
- Is it specific and actionable?
|
|
- Is it easy to do?
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Appropriate to content**
|
|
- Matches the content topic?
|
|
- Logical progression?
|
|
- Not jarring or forced?
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Single primary CTA**
|
|
- One main action requested?
|
|
- Not overwhelming with options?
|
|
- Clear and prominent?
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Readability and Accessibility
|
|
|
|
### Readability Checks
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Scannable format**
|
|
- Short paragraphs (1-3 sentences)?
|
|
- Subheadings every 200-300 words?
|
|
- Bullet points and lists used?
|
|
- Bold text for emphasis?
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Clear hierarchy**
|
|
- Heading levels logical (H1, H2, H3)?
|
|
- Visual hierarchy clear?
|
|
- Important info stands out?
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Appropriate length**
|
|
- Long enough to deliver value?
|
|
- Short enough to maintain attention?
|
|
- No unnecessary fluff?
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Active voice predominant**
|
|
- 80%+ active voice?
|
|
- Direct and engaging?
|
|
- Not passive and boring?
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Accessibility Checks
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Alt text for images**
|
|
- Descriptive alt text provided?
|
|
- Conveys image meaning?
|
|
- Accessible to screen readers?
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Sufficient color contrast**
|
|
- Text readable against background?
|
|
- Not relying on color alone?
|
|
- Accessible to colorblind users?
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Captions for video/audio**
|
|
- Subtitles or captions provided?
|
|
- Accurate transcription?
|
|
- Accessible to deaf/hard of hearing?
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Mobile-friendly**
|
|
- Readable on small screens?
|
|
- Images sized appropriately?
|
|
- No horizontal scrolling?
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Quality Assurance
|
|
|
|
### Content Quality
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Factually accurate**
|
|
- Information verified?
|
|
- Sources credible?
|
|
- Data current?
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Original content**
|
|
- Not plagiarized?
|
|
- Unique perspective?
|
|
- Proper attribution if quoting?
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Complete and comprehensive**
|
|
- All promised points covered?
|
|
- No major gaps?
|
|
- Satisfies the topic?
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Examples and proof**
|
|
- Claims backed up?
|
|
- Examples provided?
|
|
- Data or case studies included?
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Technical Quality
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **No spelling or grammar errors**
|
|
- Proofread thoroughly?
|
|
- Run through grammar checker?
|
|
- Read aloud for flow?
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Links work correctly**
|
|
- All links tested?
|
|
- Open in appropriate window?
|
|
- Relevant and current?
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Images optimized**
|
|
- File size compressed?
|
|
- Dimensions appropriate?
|
|
- Quality maintained?
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Formatting consistent**
|
|
- Heading styles consistent?
|
|
- List formatting uniform?
|
|
- Spacing consistent?
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Engagement Optimization
|
|
|
|
### Hook and Opening
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Strong hook (first 3 seconds/50 words)**
|
|
- Grabs attention immediately?
|
|
- Creates curiosity or promises value?
|
|
- Relevant to target audience?
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Clear value proposition early**
|
|
- What they'll get stated upfront?
|
|
- Why they should continue?
|
|
- Compelling reason to engage?
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Throughout Content
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Maintains interest**
|
|
- Pacing appropriate?
|
|
- Variety in content presentation?
|
|
- No boring sections?
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Visual breaks**
|
|
- Images, graphics, or videos?
|
|
- White space used well?
|
|
- Not walls of text?
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Engagement opportunities**
|
|
- Questions posed?
|
|
- Invites interaction?
|
|
- Encourages comments/shares?
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Closing
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Strong conclusion**
|
|
- Summarizes key points?
|
|
- Reinforces main message?
|
|
- Leaves lasting impression?
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Clear CTA**
|
|
- Next step obvious?
|
|
- Easy to take action?
|
|
- Compelling reason to act?
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Platform-Specific Checks
|
|
|
|
### Blog/Article
|
|
|
|
- [ ] SEO optimized (title, meta, headings)
|
|
- [ ] Internal links to related content
|
|
- [ ] Featured image included
|
|
- [ ] Table of contents (if long-form)
|
|
- [ ] Social sharing buttons visible
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Social Media
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Hook before "see more" cutoff
|
|
- [ ] Appropriate hashtags (3-5)
|
|
- [ ] Tagged relevant accounts
|
|
- [ ] Correct image dimensions
|
|
- [ ] Posting at optimal time
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Video
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Compelling thumbnail
|
|
- [ ] Hook in first 3 seconds
|
|
- [ ] Captions/subtitles included
|
|
- [ ] End screen with CTA
|
|
- [ ] Optimized title and description
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Email
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Subject line compelling (40-50 chars)
|
|
- [ ] Preview text optimized
|
|
- [ ] Mobile-friendly layout
|
|
- [ ] Unsubscribe link included
|
|
- [ ] Tested across email clients
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Podcast
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Clean audio (no background noise)
|
|
- [ ] Show notes written
|
|
- [ ] Timestamps included
|
|
- [ ] Episode artwork uploaded
|
|
- [ ] Metadata complete
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Audience Feedback Integration
|
|
|
|
### Before Publishing
|
|
|
|
**Beta readers**:
|
|
- Share with small group
|
|
- Get feedback on clarity
|
|
- Test assumptions
|
|
- Identify gaps
|
|
|
|
**A/B testing**:
|
|
- Test different hooks
|
|
- Try variations of CTA
|
|
- Experiment with formats
|
|
- Compare headlines
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### After Publishing
|
|
|
|
**Monitor engagement**:
|
|
- Comments and questions
|
|
- Share and save rates
|
|
- Time on page
|
|
- Drop-off points
|
|
|
|
**Gather feedback**:
|
|
- Ask for input
|
|
- Survey audience
|
|
- Read comments carefully
|
|
- Track common questions
|
|
|
|
**Iterate**:
|
|
- Update based on feedback
|
|
- Clarify confusing points
|
|
- Add missing information
|
|
- Improve weak sections
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Review Process
|
|
|
|
### Self-Review (First Pass)
|
|
|
|
1. **Read through completely**
|
|
- Don't edit yet, just read
|
|
- Note overall impression
|
|
- Identify major issues
|
|
|
|
2. **Check against checklist**
|
|
- Go through each item
|
|
- Mark what needs fixing
|
|
- Prioritize changes
|
|
|
|
3. **Make revisions**
|
|
- Address major issues first
|
|
- Then minor improvements
|
|
- Don't over-edit
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Peer Review (Second Pass)
|
|
|
|
1. **Share with colleague or friend**
|
|
- Someone in target audience ideal
|
|
- Fresh eyes catch issues
|
|
- Get honest feedback
|
|
|
|
2. **Ask specific questions**
|
|
- "Is the main point clear?"
|
|
- "Does the hook grab you?"
|
|
- "Is anything confusing?"
|
|
- "Would you share this?"
|
|
|
|
3. **Incorporate feedback**
|
|
- Consider all feedback
|
|
- Make judgment calls
|
|
- Don't change everything
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Final Review (Third Pass)
|
|
|
|
1. **Technical check**
|
|
- Spelling and grammar
|
|
- Links and images
|
|
- Formatting
|
|
- Platform requirements
|
|
|
|
2. **Read aloud**
|
|
- Catches awkward phrasing
|
|
- Tests flow and rhythm
|
|
- Identifies run-on sentences
|
|
|
|
3. **Final approval**
|
|
- Meets all checklist items?
|
|
- Satisfied with quality?
|
|
- Ready to publish?
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Common Review Mistakes
|
|
|
|
### ❌ Skipping the Review
|
|
Publishing without checking.
|
|
|
|
### ✅ Systematic Review
|
|
Following checklist every time.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### ❌ Only Self-Reviewing
|
|
Missing issues you're blind to.
|
|
|
|
### ✅ Getting Fresh Eyes
|
|
Peer review or beta readers.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### ❌ Over-Editing
|
|
Losing voice and authenticity.
|
|
|
|
### ✅ Balanced Editing
|
|
Improve clarity without over-polishing.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### ❌ Ignoring Audience Fit
|
|
Focusing only on technical quality.
|
|
|
|
### ✅ Audience-First Review
|
|
Ensuring it serves the audience.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Usage
|
|
|
|
Use this review process for:
|
|
- All content before publishing
|
|
- Updating existing content
|
|
- Quality assurance
|
|
- Team content reviews
|
|
- Client content approval
|
|
|
|
**Remember**: The review process ensures your content serves your audience effectively. It's not about perfection—it's about clarity, value, and resonance.
|