| name | content-reviewer |
| description | Use when reviewing written content (blog posts, marketing copy) for AI-generated patterns and improving prose for natural human voice |
Content Reviewer
Overview
Review written content to detect AI-generated patterns and suggest improvements for more natural, human voice. Works best on blog posts, marketing copy, and documentation.
When to Use
- After drafting content, before publishing
- When content "sounds AI-generated"
- When polishing prose for publication
- User asks to review content for AI-isms
Workflow
digraph review_flow {
"Read content" [shape=doublecircle];
"Pass 1: AI patterns" [shape=box];
"Pass 2: Style issues" [shape=box];
"Pass 3: Structure" [shape=box];
"Present findings with options" [shape=box];
"User approves changes" [shape=doublecircle];
"Read content" -> "Pass 1: AI patterns";
"Pass 1: AI patterns" -> "Pass 2: Style issues";
"Pass 2: Style issues" -> "Pass 3: Structure";
"Pass 3: Structure" -> "Present findings with options";
"Present findings with options" -> "User approves changes";
}
Pass 1: AI Pattern Detection
Scan for these common AI-isms and flag with line numbers:
| Pattern | Example | Issue |
|---|---|---|
| "Picture this:" openers | "Picture this: a user logs in..." | Cliché AI opener |
| Rhetorical question chains | "What if you could X? Tap into Y?" | Formulaic |
| Contrast structures | "The real unlock isn't X. It's Y" | Overused by AI |
| "Think of it as..." | "Think of it as a unified account" | AI filler phrase |
| "Consider how/a..." | "Consider how markets work:" | Sometimes ok, often AI-ish |
| Parallel structures | "What X does for Y, Z does for W" | Too symmetrical, formulaic |
| "This is a step towards..." | Generic progress language | Vague |
| "lays the foundation" | Cliché | Context-dependent |
| "This creates a flywheel" | Buzzy | Context-dependent |
| "hub" as noun | "interoperability hub" | Overused buzzword |
| Back-to-back rhetorical questions | "What if X? What about Y?" | AI pattern |
| Excessive bullet points | "How it will work: - X - Y - Z - W" | AI formatting, reads sloppy |
Preferred Alternatives
| AI Pattern | Human Alternative |
|---|---|
| "Picture this: X" | Just state X directly |
| "What if you could X?" | "You could X" |
| "The real unlock isn't X. It's Y" | Cut, or just state Y |
| "Think of it as X" | "It's X" or use a dash |
| "Consider how X works:" | "X already works this way:" |
| "What X does for Y, Z does for W" | "Z plays the same role for W" |
| Excessive bullet points | Convert to flowing prose; use bullets only for truly parallel items |
Pass 2: Style Issues
Check for:
- Redundancy - Same point made twice in different sections
- Inconsistent formatting - Some bullets bold, some not
- Long sentences - Could be split for clarity
- Vague language - Could be more concrete/specific
- Salesy tone - "That's volume you're not capturing" → "That's a user you're losing"
- Jargon - Technical terms without explanation
- "settlement" vs "clearing" - "Clearing" is often better (DTCC does clearing)
- Excessive bullet points - Lists that should be prose; bullets only work for truly parallel, scannable items
Pass 3: Structure
- Does each section earn its length?
- Are examples concrete and current? (Avoid dated references)
- Does the flow feel natural?
- Are there abrupt transitions?
- Is there a clear narrative arc?
Output Format
For each issue found, present as a table:
| Line | Current | Suggested | Issue |
|------|---------|-----------|-------|
| 36 | "Picture this: a user..." | "A user..." | AI opener |
| 44 | "What if you could X? Y?" | "You could X, or Y." | Rhetorical chain |
Then for significant changes, offer options:
**Line X:** [Current text]
**Issue:** [What's wrong]
**Options:**
1. [Alternative A]
2. [Alternative B]
3. [Cut entirely]
Section-by-Section Review
When doing a full review, go section by section:
### **[Section Name] (lines X-Y)**
**Verdict:** ✓ Good | Needs minor tweaks | Needs work
**Issues:**
- [specific issues with line numbers]
**Suggestions:**
- [specific suggestions]
Final Summary
After all passes, provide:
## Summary
- **AI patterns found:** X
- **Style issues:** X
- **Recommendation:** Ready to ship | Minor tweaks needed | Significant revision needed
**Remaining TODOs:**
- [any placeholders or missing content]
Interaction Style
- Present options, don't force changes
- Be direct about issues
- Acknowledge when something is fine ("✓ Good")
- Know when to stop - diminishing returns are real
- Let user choose between alternatives
- Don't over-edit - preserve author's voice
Critical Constraints
DO:
- Flag specific lines with issues
- Provide multiple options for fixes
- Be honest about quality
- Stop when content is good enough
DON'T:
- Rewrite entire sections without asking
- Force changes the user doesn't want
- Keep nitpicking after major issues are fixed
- Remove personality/voice from content