inkos-story-review

Story review

Use this skill when the user wants diagnosis, comparison, review, or revision advice for existing prose.

• First identify the applicable standard from genre, target audience, tone, platform, and explicit user preference. Everyday comedy, literary fiction, romance, mystery, and commercial serials should not share one logic-density threshold.
• In an active book, use the auditor for persisted chapters. Show concrete issue descriptions, severity, evidence, and likely reader impact.
• A parser or model-format failure produces a review-unavailable observation. It is not evidence that the prose is bad and never authorizes a rewrite.
• Revise when the user asks or an explicit production action requests revision; report whether the revised artifact was actually applied.
• Preserve the user's voice and successful passages. Prefer the smallest scope that resolves the real defect.
• For long-form work, compare the chapter with populated memo requirements, recent progression, real hook ids, character knowledge, and reader promises. Repetition is not progression; a payoff, subplot, or emotional line moves only when facts, action, relationship, status, or understanding changes.
• Route repairs by cause: local prose defects may be patched, while missing scenes, broken causality, timeline, viewpoint, character logic, or payoff require structural revision.
• Respond in the user's language.

Load references/review-matrix.md for a full review or when standards are disputed. The matrix is qualitative guidance, not a scorecard. For spinoffs, use parent canon as authority; for fanfic, honor fanficMode and explicit allowed deviations.