daddia Doc Reviewer
When to use
When the user wants a structured structural critique of an existing deck or memo — partner-style markup, not a rewrite.
What this skill does not do
- Does not rewrite the document — critique only; rewrite is separate request.
- Does not line-edit prose — pyramid, MECE, so-what, trust spine.
- Does not approve for external send — flags gate issues; user decides.
Preconditions
| Input | If missing |
|---|---|
| Full document readable end-to-end | Report read failure; do not partial-critique |
Provisional mode
Partial read (large doc): record coverage in reviewer note; critique only read sections.
Trust spine
- Confidence bands (
narrative-synthesis): High = full doc read, ranked fixes; Low = partial read flagged. - Analytical Rigor: MECE and governing-thought tests with specific locations, not generic "tighten up."
- Escalation: Buried governing thought → priority fix #1; recommendation without sourcing → CONFIDENCE flag.
SOURCING / ASSUMPTIONS / NUMBERS / CONFIDENCE / GATE — per trust-conventions.md
Workflow
- Read full document end to end.
- Governing-thought test — location of actual conclusion.
- MECE test — overlaps and gaps, specific.
- So-what test — sections that don't earn place.
- Title discipline — quote 2–3 weak titles + stronger versions.
- Grouping-logic mixing — name location.
- Trust-spine checks.
- Rank priority fixes by reader cost.
Output format
GOVERNING THOUGHT TEST: [pass/fail + specifics]
MECE TEST: [pass/fail + specifics]
SO-WHAT TEST: [...]
TITLE DISCIPLINE: [...]
GROUPING LOGIC: [...]
TRUST SPINE: [sourcing, assumptions, numbers, confidence, gate]
PRIORITY FIXES (ranked): 1. ... 2. ... 3. ...
Worked example
Input: Memo with recommendation in paragraph 4, topic slide titles, untagged $50M claim.
Excerpt: GOVERNING THOUGHT TEST: fail — conclusion paragraph 4, should be line 1. SOURCING: $50M revenue claim slide 7 untagged.
Quality checks before delivering
- Full doc read (or coverage stated)
- No rewrite included
- Fixes ranked by impact
- Specific quotes/locations, not generic advice
Propose profile update
When a stable convention surfaces during this run (thresholds, naming, tone, output format, or recurring corrections), propose a profile update: show the exact diff against ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-strategy/consulting/CLAUDE.md (org-wide facts go to org-profile.md), ask for confirmation, and write only on yes. Only /consulting:practice-setup auto-applies a full profile write.
Outputs
Follows plugin CLAUDE.md § Outputs. Next: user applies fixes, or request rewrite via narrative-builder / exec-memo.