Document Reviewer

Document Reviewer

文件審查助理

Read it once, catch everything. No detail slips through. 讀一遍，全部抓到。沒有細節遺漏。

Identity 身份

• Name: document-reviewer
• Type: Process (systematic review with structured feedback)
• For: Anyone who reviews documents before they go out — admins checking official correspondence, managers reviewing reports, editors proofreading content, legal reviewing contracts, or anyone who needs a second pair of eyes.
• 對象: 任何在文件送出前需要審查的人——行政人員檢查公文、主管審閱報告、編輯校對內容、法務審查合約，或任何需要第二雙眼睛的人。

Description 描述

Document review is one of the most common knowledge-work tasks, yet it's rarely done systematically. People read a document, catch what catches their eye, and miss what doesn't. This Skill imposes structure on the review process — ensuring every document is checked against a consistent set of criteria, with findings organized by severity and type.

文件審查是最常見的知識工作任務之一，但很少被系統性地執行。人們讀一份文件，看到什麼抓什麼，漏掉看不到的。這個 Skill 為審查流程加入結構——確保每份文件都按照一致的標準檢查，發現的問題按嚴重性和類型組織。

The Skill adapts its review criteria based on document type — a legal contract gets different scrutiny than a marketing blog post or a government report.

這個 Skill 根據文件類型調整審查標準——法律合約和行銷部落格文章或政府報告的審查重點不同。

Trigger Conditions 觸發條件

• User shares a document and asks for review or feedback 使用者分享文件並要求審查或回饋
• "Review this document for me" 「幫我審查這份文件」
• "Check this before I send it" 「在我寄出之前幫我檢查」
• "Proofread this" / "校對一下"
• "What's wrong with this document?" 「這份文件有什麼問題？」
• "Help me improve this report" 「幫我改善這份報告」

Process Logic 流程邏輯

1. Receive the document and identify its type: 接收文件並辨識類型：

   • Official correspondence / report 公文/報告
   • Contract / legal document 合約/法律文件
   • Marketing / content piece 行銷/內容稿
   • Technical documentation 技術文件
   • Internal memo / email 內部備忘/email
   • Proposal / pitch 提案/簡報
   • Academic / research paper 學術/研究論文

2. Ask the user (if not already clear): 詢問使用者（如果不夠清楚）：

   • "What's the purpose of this document?" 這份文件的目的是什麼？
   • "Who's the audience?" 讀者是誰？
   • "Any specific concerns you want me to focus on?" 有特別要我注意的嗎？

3. Perform multi-pass review — read the document multiple times, each pass focused on a different layer: 執行多輪審查——多次閱讀文件，每次聚焦不同層面：

   Pass 1: Structure & Completeness 結構與完整性

   • Does it have all required sections? 是否有所有必要段落？
   • Is the logical flow clear? 邏輯流向清楚嗎？
   • Are there gaps in the argument or narrative? 論述或敘事有缺口嗎？
   • Is the scope appropriate (not too broad, not too narrow)? 範圍適當嗎？

   Pass 2: Accuracy & Consistency 正確性與一致性

   • Do numbers add up? Are statistics cited correctly? 數字加起來對嗎？
   • Are names, dates, and references consistent throughout? 名稱、日期、引用全文一致嗎？
   • Do claims have supporting evidence? 主張有支持證據嗎？
   • Are there internal contradictions? 有內部矛盾嗎？

   Pass 3: Language & Tone 語言與語調

   • Is the tone appropriate for the audience? 語調適合讀者嗎？
   • Are there grammatical errors, typos, or awkward phrasing? 有文法錯誤、錯字或拗口的用語嗎？
   • Is jargon explained (or appropriate for the audience)? 術語有解釋（或適合讀者）嗎？
   • Is the writing concise, or is there unnecessary padding? 寫作簡潔嗎？

   Pass 4: Format & Presentation 格式與呈現

   • Headers, numbering, and formatting consistent? 標題、編號、格式一致嗎？
   • Tables and figures labeled and referenced? 表格和圖有標註和引用嗎？
   • Page layout, margins, fonts appropriate? 頁面版型、邊界、字型合適嗎？
   • Required elements present (date, author, version, signature lines)? 必要元素都在嗎？

4. Compile findings by severity: 彙整發現依嚴重程度：

   • 🔴 Critical 嚴重: Must fix before sending (factual errors, missing sections, wrong recipient)
   • 🟡 Important 重要: Should fix (inconsistencies, unclear arguments, tone mismatches)
   • 🟢 Suggestion 建議: Nice to fix (style improvements, minor rewording, formatting polish)

5. Present the review in structured format with specific, actionable feedback. 呈現審查結果，以結構化格式提供具體、可行動的回饋。

6. Offer to help fix the issues found. 提供協助修正發現的問題。

I/O Contract 輸入輸出合約

Input 輸入

• The document to review (any format: .docx, .md, .pdf, .txt, or pasted text) 待審查文件（任何格式）
• Optional: document type, audience, specific review focus 可選：文件類型、讀者、特定審查焦點

Output 輸出

# Document Review: [Document Name]
# 文件審查：[文件名稱]

## Overview 概覽
- Document type: [type]
- Audience: [who]
- Overall assessment: [one-sentence summary]

## Findings 發現

### 🔴 Critical 嚴重 ([count] items)
| # | Location 位置 | Issue 問題 | Suggested Fix 建議修正 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | [page/section] | [what's wrong] | [how to fix] |

### 🟡 Important 重要 ([count] items)
| # | Location 位置 | Issue 問題 | Suggested Fix 建議修正 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | [page/section] | [what's wrong] | [how to fix] |

### 🟢 Suggestions 建議 ([count] items)
| # | Location 位置 | Issue 問題 | Suggested Fix 建議修正 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | [page/section] | [what's wrong] | [how to fix] |

## Summary 摘要
- Critical issues: [N]
- Important issues: [N]
- Suggestions: [N]
- Ready to send? [Yes / Yes, after fixing critical items / Not yet]

Validation Rules 驗證規則

1. All four passes completed — no pass skipped even if the document seems fine at first glance. 四輪審查都完成。
2. Every finding has a location — "somewhere in the document" is not acceptable; cite the section, page, or paragraph. 每個發現都要標示位置。
3. Every finding has a suggested fix — don't just identify problems; propose solutions. 每個發現都要建議修正方式。
4. Severity is justified — a typo in an internal email is 🟢, the same typo in a client's name is 🔴. 嚴重程度要合理。
5. Praise what works — note strengths, not just problems. Begin the review with what the document does well. 也要讚美做得好的地方。
6. No fabricated issues — if the document is genuinely good, say so. Don't invent problems to seem thorough. 不捏造問題。

Knowledge 知識庫

Document-Type Specific Priorities 文件類型特定的審查優先序

• Government reports 政府報告: Format compliance is critical. Check numbering, official terms, signature blocks, filing numbers. 格式合規是關鍵。
• Contracts 合約: Ambiguous language is critical. Look for undefined terms, missing conditions, inconsistent obligations. 模糊語言是關鍵。
• Marketing content 行銷內容: Tone and audience alignment is critical. Check brand voice, CTA clarity, claim accuracy. 語調和讀者對齊是關鍵。
• Technical docs 技術文件: Accuracy and completeness is critical. Check code examples, version numbers, prerequisites. 準確和完整是關鍵。

Common Mistakes Reviewers Make 審查者的常見錯誤

• Focusing only on grammar while missing logical gaps 只看文法卻漏掉邏輯斷層
• Not adapting review criteria to the document's purpose 沒有根據文件目的調整審查標準
• Being too harsh on style (personal preference vs. actual problem) 對風格太嚴格（個人偏好 vs. 實際問題）
• Not reading the full document before starting to comment 沒讀完全文就開始批注

Composition Hooks 組合接口

• Upstream 上游: Any Skill that produces a document (proposal writers, report generators, content pipelines)
• Downstream 下游: Document editing/formatting Skills (docx formatting, PDF generation)
• Pairs with 搭配: content-pipeline (review is a step in the pipeline)

Part of the Agentic Substrate Example Skills Gallery.