# Critique Chapter > Hard, structured critique of a written chapter against the book's own contract — beat sheet, canon, shadow, seed envelope, prose anti-patterns, dwelling techniques. Produces a written critique with prioritized issues and concrete fixes. Use this after a chapter is written and before `update-canon` locks it in. Invoke as "critique chapter N". - Skill: `abetatos/critique-chapter` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add abetatos/critique-chapter` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/abetatos/critique-chapter/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: abetatos (https://skillmd.com/u/abetatos) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/abetatos/critique-chapter --- # critique-chapter You are running the **critique-chapter** skill. Read a chapter against the bundle that produced it and report where it succeeds and fails. The critique is **for the user**, not for you to silently fix — the user decides what to apply. > **Runs headless.** This critique always audits in a **fresh context** (the > `book-critic` subagent), never in the conversation that wrote the chapter — > see step 0. When you ARE the subagent, step 4 "Report to user" means > **return the verdict + counts + load-bearing findings to the orchestrator** — > your final message is the report. Still write the `notes/critique-chNN.md` > file; never edit the chapter. ## Hard rules - **Be specific and quote the offending line — always.** "The prose is flat" is useless; "Paragraph 3 reaches for 'tapestry of mist', a banned cliché — replace with a concrete sensory anchor" is useful. - **MUST fix** — a **verifiable, citable** contract break: contradicts canon, omits a seed the envelope says to plant, drops a plot beat, a plot beat that doesn't follow causally from the prior chapter, a character action inconsistent with the arc waypoint, a motivation that requires off-stage information, or a reveal/shadow leak (checks 5-6). Every MUST quotes the offending line and names the specific source it breaks (canon line, beat sheet bullet, seed id, anti-pattern name). If you cannot cite the source and quote the break, it is not a MUST. - **Tag every MUST with a bracketed issue-type** — `- **[issue-type]** …`. The verdict is computed from these tags (step 3). Use the **REJECT-tier** slugs (listed in step 3) only for structural breaks a surgical pass can't fix; any other MUST (e.g. `[reveal-leak]`, `[shadow-leak]`) is a REVISE-tier fix. - **Leak severity follows what the page STATES, not what a reader might infer** (governs checks 5-6): MUST only when a line states the reserved truth in plain language — a sentence a reader could quote as the fact itself. Prose that is merely *louder than ideal* (a too-vivid image, "a first-read reader could infer X", a volume judgment with no line that *says* it) is SHOULD. Either way the anomaly should be whispered here and understood later. - **SHOULD fix** — anti-pattern phrases, missed grounding opportunities, weak subtext, telegraphed seeds, tonal drift, a chapter ending that doesn't earn the transition the beat sheet promised. - **CONSIDER** — taste-level suggestions. The user can ignore. - **Do not rewrite the chapter.** Quote, name, point. Concrete *direction* yes; substitute prose no. - **Look for story flaws, not just craft flaws.** A chapter can be technically clean (all beats hit, all seeds present, prose tidy) and still **wrong**: a motivation that doesn't match what the POV knows, a chapter that doesn't change the world state, dramatic energy descending when it should ascend. Same MUST/SHOULD treatment. Read hard — re-read once before declaring a tier clean — but a chapter genuinely **can** pass with zero findings; do not manufacture one to avoid an empty verdict. When a finding's severity is in doubt, **de-escalate** (uncertain MUST → SHOULD): the verdict must be true, not non-empty. ## Steps ### 0. Dispatch the analysis to a fresh subagent (main thread only) If you can spawn subagents (you have the Agent tool) and you were invoked standalone (`critique chapter N`, not already inside `book-critic`), **do not audit in this conversation**. Dispatch steps 1-4 to the `book-critic` subagent (Agent tool, `subagent_type: book-critic`) with the prompt `chapter --series-slug --book-number `. It audits in a **fresh context** — no leak from this session, and you no longer have to `/clear` to read the chapter clean. It writes `notes/critique-ch.md` and returns the verdict + counts + load-bearing findings. Read that file, then go **straight to step 4** (report to user) — that is interactive and stays here, in the main thread. > When the **book-critic subagent itself** runs this skill it has no Agent tool, > so it cannot dispatch — it simply executes steps 1-4 directly and stops before > step 4's interactive tail. (That is how recursion is structurally prevented.) > `write-novel` likewise dispatches this critique itself, so when it chains the > skill the work is already in the subagent — don't re-dispatch. ### 1. Load the contract Build the context bundle (idempotent): ```bash python3 .claude/skills/write-chapter/scripts/build_context.py \ --series-slug --book-number --chapter --phase critique ``` `--phase critique` drops the recent-chapters-in-full block (you read the target chapter directly) but keeps the style guide and craft checklist. It also writes a **marker-stripped copy** of the chapter to `notes/_chapter-clean-chMM.md` (the `▼▼▼ EXPAND ▼▼▼` scaffolding removed) and prints the chapter's **sha256**. Record that hash in your critique file (step 3) as `**Chapter-hash:** ` so `update-canon` can confirm the prose did not change after this audit. Then run the deterministic auditor and fold any ERROR into your MUST list: ```bash python3 scripts/lint_book.py --series-slug --book-number ``` Each `ERROR` line is a citable contract break (a dropped seed token, a dangling `Revealed-by`, an out-of-range schedule, a lock-in gap) — add it as a MUST with the appropriate tag. A clean lint is not a pass on its own; keep reading the prose. Read `notes/_context-chMM.md`. Sections relevant to critique: **Setup** (voice, tense, distance, prose constraints), **Canon** (must not be contradicted), **Plan / outline** (this chapter's beat sheet), **Shadow timeline** (writer's truths — implied, never stated), **Seed envelope** (honored exactly), **Style guide** (this book's `style.md`, incl. anti-cursi calibration), **References** (anti-patterns checklist, dwelling techniques). Then read **`notes/voice.md` directly** (the file, not the bundle): its per-POV voice rules AND its **"Recurring patterns to watch / avoid"** list — *this book's documented default failure modes* — which you MUST check the chapter against (step 8d). Then read the chapter from the **marker-stripped copy** `notes/_chapter-clean-chMM.md` (not `chapters/MM.md`): same prose, EXPAND banner lines removed, so the scaffolding can never become a spurious finding. (The original `chapters/MM.md` is still the file the author edits.) ### 2. Run the structured pass Go through these checks in order. For each, write a finding (or "clean") to the critique buffer. 1. **Length is judged structurally — NEVER counted.** Do not count words, run `wc`, or compare the chapter's length to the setup range; the pipeline deliberately never measures generated length (a visible count-vs-target breeds compensation — padding, or "write more generously" leaking into the next chapter). Never write a finding whose evidence is a number of words. A chapter is *thin* only structurally: a missing plot beat (check 2) or fewer than 2 grounding moments (check 3). It is *bloated* only structurally: generic lingering that passes no need test (check 3), scenes that repeat a job already done, texture stacked on texture — tag those `[texture-padding]` **SHOULD** with the quoted lines. 2. **Beat sheet fidelity.** Does the chapter hit every plot beat? Missing beat is `MUST fix`. 3. **Grounding beats.** Are there 2-4 grounding moments of the licensed types (see `style.md` / expand-chapter's six: world element unfolded in use, stage built, cost made visible, deliberation on the page, re-orientation, secondary humanized)? List each, named by type and by what it grounds. Generic lingering — texture that neither grounds, unfolds, costs, nor reasons — does NOT count toward the 2-4 (and may itself be a `SHOULD fix` under "Dwelling is rationed"). If under 2 grounding moments, `MUST fix`. 4. **Subtext.** Pick three moments where the chapter could have carried subtext. Did it? If multiple are flat, `SHOULD fix`. 4b. **Proactivity & earned wins (sliding scales).** Read the "Sliding scales" block at the end of `plan/arcs.md`. Two counts: - **The POV chose.** Did the POV make at least one *choice* that changed their situation — gained ground, lost it, or took on a new cost? Noticing, enduring, hiding well, or being moved by others is not choosing. If no such choice: `SHOULD fix [passive-pov]`, naming the existing beat where a choice could live. (For Bruno and Olmo this is a hard per-chapter rule — see arcs.md.) - **Wins are bought.** If the chapter contains a victory, was it paid for with failed attempts (this or earlier chapters) that worsened the situation or added cost? A free win is `SHOULD fix` — the structural twin of an unseeded payoff. Diagnostic only: never ask the prose to mention dials or scales. 5. **Seed envelope.** - Each `plant` due here: is it planted? Quote the line. Telegraphed (flag word, isolated sentence, too prominent) → `SHOULD fix`; missing → `MUST fix`. - Each `echo`: referenced obliquely? `SHOULD fix` if missing or restated verbatim. - Each `payoff`: does the truth surface? Is it explained or allowed to click? `MUST fix` if missing. - **Dose / telegraph by repetition.** For any seed whose `Dose` field constrains it (typically a payoff ≤2 chapters from its plant), count the chapter's touches and whether it *re-describes* the seed (especially at its opening) before paying it off. A near-term payoff re-established in full is "seen coming a mile off" — `SHOULD fix`, quoting the redundant description and naming the Dose budget it broke. - **Trigger fidelity.** For an event payoff: fired from the seed's intrinsic `Trigger` (an already-seeded cause), or from a convenient invented external actor (a horse, a storm, a stranger arriving just in time)? A contrived trigger is `MUST fix` — quote it and point to the intrinsic trigger that should fire instead. - **No deus ex machina (presence + cause).** Every key character who appears must be there for a *motivated, seeded* reason. One who shows up exactly when needed with no prior cause ("a mentor passing through", a rescuer who happens to be there) is `MUST fix` — quote the unmotivated entrance and name the motivated version (a reason tied to the book's engine, established before the character matters). Cross-check any presence rule in `notes/decisions.md`. - **Resolution image.** If a resolution-type seed pays off here, does the chapter *invert/transform the exact image planted earlier* (and let it click, not explain)? A flat statement instead is `SHOULD fix`. - **Reveal-timing leak.** Judge against the seed's payoff chapter or a locked decision, with severity per the leak rule in Hard rules (MUST only for a plain-language statement, quoted; volume/inference is SHOULD). 6. **Shadow honesty.** Does the narrator state a truth the POV (and the reader, at this chapter's reveal level) should not yet hold? Severity per the leak rule in Hard rules. Prose that merely *rhymes* with the hidden truth — an image, a subtext, an unease — without stating it is correct seeding, not a leak; do not flag it. 7. **Canon.** Cross-check named characters, places, magic terms, relationships against `canon/`. Quote any contradiction. `MUST fix`. Also check the bundle's **Continuity contract** section (the chapter's state sheet from plan-chapter): a line that contradicts it — a character in the wrong place or state, the POV knowing something the sheet reserves for a later chapter, an object that moved with no on-page reason — is `MUST fix [canon-contradiction]`. 8. **POV / voice / tense.** Match `setup.md`. Any drift is `SHOULD fix`. 8b. **Style guide.** Hold the prose against this book's `style.md`. Flag especially anti-cursi violations: emotional thesis statements, overspent physical emotion (tears/trembling more than once or twice), decorative beautiful lines that carry no plot/character/sense, and any rule the book's own `style.md` declares. Quote each. `SHOULD fix`; `MUST fix` if it breaks an explicit book-level style rule. First run the deterministic prose auditor — the countable tics (the six named caps, explanatory similes, and cross-chapter repetition) are **counted for you, not judged by eye**: ```bash python scripts/lint_prose.py --series-slug --book-number --chapter ``` Read `notes/_prose-report-chNN.md`: a **tic-count table** (with per-book caps from `notes/prose-lint.toml`), the flagged explanatory similes, and a **cross-chapter** section (signature words reused across chapters, echoing openings, reserved lexicon spent off-plan) — the repetition a fresh single-chapter read cannot see. **Do not recount these by hand.** Judge each flagged instance: every tic over its cap is a `SHOULD fix` — quote the offending line the report lists and say which one to keep; a reserved word spent off-plan or a signature word on its 3rd+ chapter is a `SHOULD fix` too. The script is a floor on these tics, not the ceiling — also read for what its regexes cannot catch (the spun-out "…que Z cuando W" simile, the ominous "todavía / ya no"). 8c. **Richness & seeding — the add-back check.** Looks for what is *missing*, not what is excess: a critique that only subtracts can only make prose blander. Two passes: - **Sensory mandate.** Does every scene land at least one concrete sensation the reader *feels* (temperature, sound, weight, taste, smell), not one the narrator merely names? Mark any scene that reads grey/abstract. If the book's premise is sensory (colour, sound, scent — see `style.md`), hold it harder: a scene that does not make that premise felt is a `SHOULD fix` with a concrete suggestion of what to add. - **Unseeded payoffs (Chekhov).** List everything that breaks, pays off, or turns out to matter in this chapter; check each appeared *earlier* in ordinary use (this chapter or a prior one). An object/danger/skill that arrives only at the moment it matters is a `SHOULD fix`: name where the seed should have been planted. (Check 5 only covers tracked seeds; this catches untracked setups — e.g. a structure that collapses must have been shown as fragile beforehand.) 8d. **Default-failures sweep (MANDATORY — state it ran, even if clean).** Hunt the documented default failures in `notes/voice.md` ("Recurring patterns to watch / avoid") explicitly every chapter — they recur across drafts. Confirm each is clean, quoting any hit: - **(a) Aphoristic narrator** — any universal maxim in timeless present that reads like a quote-book line (the one named ban in `style.md`). `MUST fix`. - **(b) Omniscient flash-forward over a closed POV** — the narrator stepping ahead of the POV's present knowledge: "sin saber (todavía) que…", "no supo que…", "lo que después / siempre… al recordarlo…", or any pre-announcement of a later weight. A flash-forward that spends a reserved later beat is `MUST fix`; a vague present-tense unease that leaks nothing is fine (not a finding). - **(c) Erudite aside that leaks a later reveal** — "X no sabía nada de [términos técnicos], que es lo que enseñan en [Y]" (or similar): both a POV break AND a reveal-timing leak. `MUST fix`. Plus any other entry the book's own `voice.md` list names — treat those as this book's known regressions and weight them up, not down. **Sweep at most the 7 judgment-only patterns** `voice.md` carries after consolidation — the countable ones (a phrase form, a word, an opener shape) have graduated to `prose-lint.toml` and are already counted in the step-8b report; **cite that report's counts, do not re-hunt them by eye**. This cap is deliberate: a sweep longer than ~7 items is one an LLM silently stops doing well. 9. **Anti-patterns.** Search the chapter for every entry in `references/prose-antipatterns.md` (banned lexicon, fantasy clichés, structural tics). Quote each occurrence. `SHOULD fix` for most; `MUST fix` if there are >5 instances. Do **not** flag sensory concreteness or typed grounding that is not a named anti-pattern — that is the book's texture (see 8c). Ornament that carries no plot/character/sense violates the style guide's image budget and is flagged under 8b, not here. 10. **Opening / ending.** Non-cliché start (not waking up, not battle, not prophecy)? Does it end on the transition out specified in the beat sheet? 11. **Hard-magic laws.** Does magic used here match the capability the reader has seen? Are costs visible? `MUST fix` violations. 12. **Dialogue.** Spot-check 3 random lines. Does each reveal character, advance plot, or carry subtext (ideally two)? `SHOULD fix` flat lines. ### 3. Write the critique Write the critique to: ``` output//book-NN/notes/critique-ch.md ``` Structure (write the findings; leave the verdict to the script): ```markdown # Critique — chapter N **Chapter-hash:** **Verdict:** ## MUST fix - **[issue-type]** — quoted line / location → concrete direction - ... ## SHOULD fix - ... ## CONSIDER - ... ## What works - Brief notes on what landed. Important — the writer needs the signal. ``` **Verify your quotes before the verdict is counted.** A finding built on a line that is not actually in the chapter would be counted like a real one: ```bash python3 scripts/verify_critique_quotes.py \ --critique-file output//book-NN/notes/critique-ch.md \ --series-slug --book-number --chapter ``` Every `ERROR` is a MUST whose quote appears in neither the chapter nor any source it could legitimately cite — treat it as **presumptively hallucinated**: re-read the chapter and fix the quote to the real line, or delete the finding. A MUST with no quotable line at all (`WARN`) must gain one — the format requires it. Only when this exits clean is the finding set trustworthy enough to count. **The verdict is computed, not judged.** After the quotes verify, run: ```bash python3 scripts/compute_verdict.py \ --critique-file output//book-NN/notes/critique-ch.md \ --target chapter ``` It counts your MUST/SHOULD/CONSIDER bullets, applies the thresholds below, and prints `VERDICT: X (MUST=a SHOULD=b CONSIDER=c)`. Write that verdict into the `**Verdict:**` field — the number that drives the pipeline stays off your judgment. Thresholds the script applies (for reference — you do not apply them by hand): - **PASS** — zero MUST and ≤3 SHOULD. Ready for `update-canon`. - **REVISE** — any MUST that is *not* a REJECT-tier tag, and/or >3 SHOULD. A surgical `revise-chapter` pass resolves these. Most MUSTs land here. - **REJECT** — a MUST tagged REJECT-tier (`[missing-beat]`, `[canon-contradiction]`, `[unseeded-payoff]`, `[contrived-trigger]`, `[deus-ex-machina]`): a structural break needing a scene rewrite or outline fix. Severity follows the **tag** you assign each MUST — choose it honestly. When in doubt between REVISE- and REJECT-tier, pick the REVISE-tier tag. ### 4. Report to user, then ADJUDICATE the findings (main thread only) Print the verdict, the count of issues by tier, and the critique file path. Then run the **disposition gate** — this is what stops a chapter looping through revision forever: critiques audit fresh every pass (no memory of prior ones, by design), so without a record of what the author already settled, each fresh read re-flags the same judgment calls under new wording. For the MUST and SHOULD findings, ask the author (one `AskUserQuestion`, one finding per question or grouped if many) how to dispose of each: - **Fix** — hand to `revise-chapter` (surgical edit). - **Intentional — lock it** — the author judges the flagged choice correct as written. Append it to `notes/decisions-ch.md` under a heading `## Critic findings adjudicated as intentional` as a one-line ruling, e.g. `- **** — INTENTIONAL: . Do not re-flag.` A fresh critic reads this file and treats the point as closed (see `book-critic.md` → "Honor adjudicated decisions"), so the same finding cannot bounce back next pass. **CONSIDER items don't need a ruling** — they're taste; skip them here. - **Defer** — the finding belongs to a later chapter (e.g. a payoff not due yet). Note it in `notes/open-questions.md`; do not act now. Then suggest the next step from the verdict: - PASS → `update-canon ` to lock in. - REVISE → `revise-chapter ` for the **Fix**-marked items only. - REJECT → structural; discuss with the user (scene rewrite or outline fix). **Loop cap.** Run at most **one** critique → revise → re-critique cycle by default. After that, re-critique only if a **structural** (REJECT-tier) MUST remains. Do not re-run a full critique to chase residual SHOULD/taste findings — lock them as intentional or accept them and move to `update-canon`. The 4-update spiral comes from re-auditing what was already adjudicated. ## What this skill does NOT do - Does not modify the chapter file. - Does not modify the plan, canon, or seeds. - Does not generate replacement prose.