story-review: Multi-perspective Adversarial Review

Review Mode Selection

• /story-review

  or

  /story-review full

  → spawn all 4 Agents

• /story-review lean

  → spawn only story-architect + consistency-checker

• /story-review solo

  → do not spawn Agents, perform basic checks by itself
• Not specified → default to full mode and inform the user

Review Process (full mode)

Phase 1: Collect Content to be Reviewed

1. Determine the review scope:
   • User specifies chapters/files → only review the specified content
   • User does not specify → review the most recently modified content (git diff) or the current chapter
2. Read the main content to be reviewed
3. Read relevant setting files and outlines
4. Identify the target platform (check

   .active-book

   or user specification) and load the corresponding rubric:
   • Fanqie Novel → read [references/rubrics/fanqie.md]
   • Qidian → read [references/rubrics/qidian.md]
   • Zhihu Yanyan → read [references/rubrics/zhihu.md]
   • Not specified → default to load [references/quality-rubric.md]

Phase 2: Spawn 4 Agents in Parallel

• Review perspective: theme alignment, outline structure, quality of hooks/twists, scope control
• Prompt instructions:

  You are a story-architect, reviewing the following content from the perspective of story architecture.
  Your task is to [find issues], not verify correctness. Examine with the strictest standards.
  Review scope: {content to be reviewed}
  Platform scoring standards: {rubric content loaded in Phase 1}
  Relevant file paths: {setting/outline/detailed outline file paths}
  Check items:
  1. Does this chapter advance the story's theme?
  2. Is the outline structure complete (hooks/爽点/suspense)?
  3. Is the emotional rhythm reasonable?
  4. What is the quality of hook and twist design?
  5. Scope control: Is there any character/setting bloat?
  6. Compare item by item against the platform rubric, mark PASS/FAIL
  
  Output format:
  VERDICT: APPROVE / CONCERNS / REJECT
  EVIDENCE: [specific references]
  RECOMMENDATIONS: [revision suggestions]

• Review perspective: consistency of character language style, dialogue quality, character arcs
• Prompt instructions:

  You are a character-designer, reviewing the following content from the perspective of characters and dialogue.
  Your task is to [find issues], not verify correctness. Examine with the strictest standards.
  Review scope: {content to be reviewed}
  Relevant character files: {character setting file paths}
  Check items:
  1. Is the character's language style consistent with their language style profile?
  2. Is the dialogue stereotypical (AI-like)?
  3. Is the character arc coherent?
  4. Does the character's behavior align with their motivations?
  5. Does the dialogue have subtext and information control?
  
  Output format:
  VERDICT: APPROVE / CONCERNS / REJECT
  EVIDENCE: [specific references]
  RECOMMENDATIONS: [revision suggestions]

• Review perspective: AI-like language detection, format compliance, rhythm uniformity
• Prompt instructions:

  You are a narrative-writer, reviewing the following content from the perspective of text quality.
  Your task is to [find issues], not verify correctness. Examine with the strictest standards.
  Review scope: {content to be reviewed}
  Banned words list: story-deslop/references/banned-words.md
  Check items:
  1. Are there any banned words/clichés/overused phrases?
  2. Is the format compliant (one sentence per paragraph, ≤60 words, no blank lines, dialogue on separate lines)?
  3. Is the rhythm uniform (no consecutive sections without emotional changes)?
  4. Does the same body part term appear more than 5 times?
  5. AI-like language level (mild/moderate/severe)?
  
  Output format:
  VERDICT: APPROVE / CONCERNS / REJECT
  AI-like Level: Mild/Moderate/Severe
  EVIDENCE: [specific references]
  RECOMMENDATIONS: [revision suggestions]

• Review perspective: grep-first factual conflict detection, output S1-S4 report
• Prompt instructions:

  You are a consistency-checker, detecting factual contradictions using the grep-first method.
  Your task is to [find factual contradictions], not make creative judgments.
  Review scope: {content to be reviewed}
  Known characters: {character list extracted from setting files}
  Project path: {working directory path for grep scanning}
  Check items:
  1. Are character attributes consistent throughout?
  2. Are world rules violated?
  3. Are foreshadowings reasonably laid/recovered?
  4. Is the timeline self-consistent?
  5. Is the foreshadowing density reasonable?
  
  Output format (S1-S4 classification):
  VERDICT: APPROVE / CONCERNS / REJECT
  CONFLICTS:
  - [S1/S2/S3/S4] Specific conflict description

Phase 3: Comprehensive Ruling

1. Collect verdicts from the 4 Agents
2. Deduplicate and classify
3. Present Discrepancies: If there are conflicting opinions among Agents, clearly present the discrepancies for the user to rule on
   • Example: story-architect thinks a certain section "has a reasonable structure", but character-designer thinks "there is a problem with the character arc"
   • Do not compromise automatically; let the user see the reasons from both sides
4. Output the comprehensive review report

Phase 4: Output Report (full mode)

=== Story Review Report ===
Review Mode: full
Review Scope: {chapter/file}

## Verdict Summary
- story-architect: APPROVE / CONCERNS(n) / REJECT
- character-designer: APPROVE / CONCERNS(n) / REJECT
- narrative-writer: APPROVE / CONCERNS(n) / REJECT
- consistency-checker: APPROVE / CONCERNS(n) / REJECT

## Comprehensive Assessment
{APPROVE / CONCERNS / REJECT}

## Issues Found
{List all issues classified from S1→S4}

## Agent Discrepancies (if any)
{List different opinions among Agents}

## Revision Suggestions
{Arranged by priority}

lean Mode

lean Mode Output Format

=== Story Review Report (lean) ===
Review Mode: lean
Review Scope: {chapter/file}

## Verdict Summary
- story-architect: APPROVE / CONCERNS(n) / REJECT
- consistency-checker: APPROVE / CONCERNS(n) / REJECT

## Comprehensive Assessment
{APPROVE / CONCERNS / REJECT}

## Issues Found
{Classified from S1→S4}

## Revision Suggestions
{Arranged by priority}

solo Mode

1. Format compliance check (one sentence per paragraph, no blank lines, dialogue format)
2. Simple setting consistency grep
3. Output a simplified report

solo Mode Output Format

=== Story Review Report (solo) ===
Review Mode: solo
Review Scope: {chapter/file}

## Basic Check Results

### Format Compliance
- [ ] Paragraph ≤60 words
- [ ] No blank lines between paragraphs
- [ ] Dialogue on separate lines
- Violation positions: {list them}

### Setting Consistency (grep scan)
- {list contradictions found}

### Brief Comment
{one paragraph summary}

Language

• All outputs should be in Chinese