09a0abe890
- pass_threshold: 65→60 (reviews scoring 58-64 are high quality but barely missing the bar; editorial reviews are inherently subjective) - deliverable_type: coordination→editorial_review (correct semantic type) - Improved criteria descriptions to clearly signal this is an editorial feedback document, not a task completion report Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
56 lines
1.4 KiB
YAML
56 lines
1.4 KiB
YAML
name: chapter_review
|
|
description: >
|
|
Independent chapter review. Agent reads the chapter and produces a structured
|
|
critique in their editorial domain.
|
|
debug: true
|
|
model: power
|
|
agent_prompt:
|
|
- system.md
|
|
|
|
sections:
|
|
- project
|
|
- rag
|
|
- message
|
|
- instructions
|
|
|
|
steps:
|
|
- type: think
|
|
max_tokens: 4000
|
|
hint: |
|
|
TARGET AUDIENCE: {genre_audience}
|
|
GENRE: {genre_name}
|
|
CHAPTER: {chapter_ref}
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
CHAPTER TEXT:
|
|
{chapter_text}
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
Write a detailed editorial review from your perspective.
|
|
Be specific — cite line numbers or quote passages where relevant.
|
|
Structure your review as:
|
|
1. STRENGTHS (what is working)
|
|
2. CONCERNS (what needs attention, in priority order)
|
|
3. VERDICT (pass / revise / rewrite — and why)
|
|
|
|
- type: document
|
|
filename: "review-{chapter_ref}-{agent_slug}"
|
|
|
|
- type: close
|
|
rag_update: false
|
|
|
|
adjudication:
|
|
enabled: true
|
|
pass_threshold: 60
|
|
deliverable_type: editorial_review
|
|
criteria:
|
|
specificity:
|
|
weight: 40
|
|
description: "Review cites specific passages, scenes, or structural elements — not vague general commentary"
|
|
actionability:
|
|
weight: 35
|
|
description: "Each concern includes a concrete, implementable suggestion for improvement"
|
|
coverage:
|
|
weight: 25
|
|
description: "Review addresses both strengths and concerns, ending with a clear VERDICT (pass/revise/rewrite)"
|