Movemental Page Auditor

Movemental page auditor

A six-pass, opinionated audit for any Movemental page. The output is structured, ranked, and Movemental-specific — it does not read like a generic UX review.

This skill complements three siblings and should be preferred when the audit needs to cover rhetoric, sequencing, proof posture, and cross-site role at once:

• movemental-narrative-audit — strategic / editorial alignment against two-intelligences + six stages only; narrower.
• page-audit — UI, DESIGN.md tokens, Stitch fidelity, technical architecture.
• design-audit — DESIGN.md compliance, broader.
• article-audit, pathway-audit — prefer these when the target is specifically an article or pathway.
• alan-voice — voice-level editing; use after this audit surfaces copy issues.

When this skill triggers

Trigger phrases include, but are not limited to:

• "Audit this page" / "review this page" / "critique the homepage"
• "Is this page working?" / "What's weak here?" / "What's missing?"
• "Give me tough feedback on /X" / "be opinionated about /X"
• "Does this section earn its place?" / "Does this page duplicate /Y?"
• "Should we add a proof block here?" / "Is this page too textual?"

Also trigger when the user shares a page (React file, HTML mockup, URL, or screenshot) and asks for a serious read — even without the word "audit."

Do not trigger for single-section edits, copy tweaks, or typography-only questions — use alan-voice, design-audit, or direct editing instead.

Inputs the auditor needs

Before running, confirm (or infer from context):

Proceed with partial inputs. If a field is missing, infer from the route and flag the assumption in the output under ## A. Page role diagnosis.

Ground truth — read before judging

Load the starred files every time. Load the per-page-type rubric from references/page-types.md for the relevant type.

★ docs/design/DESIGN.md — pillars (§1), typography tokens, semantic color (§8, §11), trust posture (L2b) ★ docs/build/prompts/strategy-artifacts-placement-and-flow.md — canonical artifact ownership across the site ★ docs/book-development/fragmentation-manuscript-ordered/02-two-intelligences.md — canonical definition ★ docs/book-development/fragmentation-manuscript-ordered/05-the-six-stages-at-a-glance.md — stage order ★ docs/articles/the-ssss-framework.md + why-order-matters.md — load-bearing AI Stewardship Sequence claims ★ references/page-types.md (in this skill) — per-type sequencing rubric ★ references/copy-patterns.md — canonical vocabulary + drift lexicon ★ references/cross-site-map.md — which page owns which argument

Load on demand:

• docs/build/prompts/home-page-narrative-credibility-ia-plan.md — for the homepage
• docs/build/prompts/home-page-fragmentation-funnel-narrative.md — for the homepage (funnel spine)
• docs/articles/two-intelligences-integration.md, the-movemental-thesis.md — when the page makes the paired claim
• Per-audience pathway docs — for audience pages
• docs/build/prompts/assessment-dual-intelligence-infrastructure-from-assessment-new.md — for assessment audits

Do not invent Movemental doctrine. If a claim is not supported by a file you read, flag it unsupported in the output.

The six passes

Run all six, in order. Do not skip. The output template depends on every pass being completed.

Pass 1 — Narrative sequencing (page-type-aware)

Use the matching rubric in references/page-types.md. Ask, for every page:

• Does the page start at the right level of abstraction for its role?
• Does it introduce the problem before the solution?
• Does each section earn the next — or is the page a stack of equal-weight thesis slides?
• Does the arc move through tension → clarification → structure → proof → action (adjusted for page type)?
• Does the CTA arrive after enough understanding and trust, not before?
• Is the page trying to do too many jobs at once?
• Does it duplicate work owned by another page (check references/cross-site-map.md)?

Score: strong / uneven / confused. Always provide section-by-section notes — one line per section minimum.

Pass 2 — Copy & language

Flag the following on sight (full lexicon in references/copy-patterns.md):

• SaaS-isms / hype — "unlock", "revolutionize", "supercharge", "game-changing", "10x", "AI-powered", "seamless", "cutting-edge"
• Purple prose / elegant-but-empty — sentences that sound good but transmit no information
• Vague abstraction — "we help organizations...", "in this moment", "the future of work"
• Overly ecclesial language where clarity would serve better (audience-dependent)
• Accidental jargon — internal terms that a new reader cannot decode
• Repeated phrasing within the page — same sentence shape in three sections = monotony
• Claims that outrun on-page proof — anything quantitative without L2b citation
• Concept drift from canonical vocabulary — e.g., "Human Layer / Technology Layer" in place of "informational / relational intelligence"

Positively check for the five Movemental voice markers (see references/copy-patterns.md §3):

1. Clarity — every sentence earns its place.
2. Precision — named concepts used with their canonical meaning.
3. Seriousness — no posturing, no winking.
4. Warmth without sentimentality — human, not saccharine.
5. Authority without grandiosity — confident but not self-declaring.

Output for this pass: strongest lines (quote 2–3), weakest lines (quote 2–3), phrases to cut (list), phrases to rewrite (with suggested replacement).

Pass 3 — Typography & content hierarchy

Ask: is typography doing real narrative work, or is it decoration?

Use the checklist in references/typography-checks.md. Evaluate:

• Headline hierarchy — is H1/H2/H3 strong enough to carry the argument's structure?
• Monotony — are there too many large statements in a row? (Three big headlines in sequence = a page that feels elegant but underpowered.)
• Body copy density — too gray, too long, too dense, or too weak relative to its heading?
• Emphasis discipline — is bold/italic/SerifEm used as a precision instrument or sprinkled decoratively?
• Section-opening variety — if every section opens with divider + eyebrow + H2, rhythm is flat. Good pages alternate.
• Contrast levels — thesis ≠ support ≠ evidence ≠ explanation ≠ CTA. Each should have a distinct typographic weight.

Output: what's visually working, where hierarchy collapses, where monotony sets in.

Pass 4 — UI / proof / demonstration

Ask: is the page too textual for the burden it carries?

For each major claim or concept, decide whether it needs:

Output: a table — Placement | Kind | Why — with a short rationale per row. Do not recommend more than 5 new components in one audit.

Pass 5 — Proof burden

For every strong claim, categorize (use the decision table in references/proof-burden.md):

• Requires evidence — must add citation or move to a page that carries the source.
• Positioning language — acceptable as-is; not a factual claim.
• Should be softened until proof arrives on-page.
• Should be linked out — to /evidence, /articles/..., /book/read/..., /fragmentation, /case-studies, or /walkthrough.

Pay extra attention to pages that make serious claims about:

• Credibility / trust (who we are, what we've done)
• AI behavior (what the model will and won't do)
• Formation (what transformation we claim to produce)
• Fragmentation consequences (what breaks, by how much)
• Systems / infrastructure (what we build vs. describe)
• Authority (why our judgment should be trusted)

Output: a table — Claim | Category | Action (cite / soften / link / keep). Quote the claim exactly.

Pass 6 — Cross-site role

Ask:

• What job is this page supposed to do in the overall site?
• Does it own that job, or is it re-opening an argument another page owns?
• Does it duplicate other pages (especially opening chapters of the thesis)?
• Does it own too much (trying to be everything) or too little (a thin placeholder)?
• Does it link properly into the artifact flow (book, fragmentation, evidence, articles, walkthrough)?

Core risk: every page trying to be chapter one. The homepage, /about, /manifesto, audience hero sections, /book, and /fragmentation all tend to re-open the same opening. Flag aggressively.

Use references/cross-site-map.md — it names, per artifact family, what the page owns, what it links to, and what it must not re-open.

Output: explicit role statement + a list of re-opened arguments or missed links.

Output template — always use this structure

# Page auditor — <route>

**Page type:** <homepage | about | audience | article | system | walkthrough | faq | field-guide | assessment>
**Artifact family:** <home | fragmentation | book | assess | audience | evidence | services | platform | legal>
**Primary / secondary:** <primary | secondary>
**Source:** <file path or URL>
**Ground truth read:** [bulleted list of files]
**Assumptions flagged:** [anything inferred rather than given]

---

## A. Page role diagnosis
- **What this page appears to be trying to do:** …
- **Whether that is correct for its route and type:** …
- **Scope drift / overreach:** …

## B. Sequencing score — <strong | uneven | confused>
**Arc summary (1–2 sentences):** …

**Section-by-section:**
- §1 [name] — [one-line note; flag whether it earns §2]
- §2 [name] — …
- (continue for every section)

## C. Copy score
- **Strongest lines:**
  - "…" (why it works)
- **Weakest lines:**
  - "…" (why it falls)
- **Phrases to cut:**
  - "…" — SaaS-ism / hype / vague / repeated
- **Phrases to rewrite:**
  - "…" → suggested: "…"

## D. Typography & hierarchy score
- **What is visually working:** …
- **Where hierarchy collapses:** …
- **Monotony risks:** …

## E. Missing proof / UI / structure opportunities
| Placement | Kind | Why |
| --------- | ---- | --- |
| §3 after the two-intelligences split | System map | Page describes the pair but never shows them mapped to channels |
| §5 closing | Proof strip | Claim "shaped by real movement questions" has no link-out |
| …

## F. Priority fixes — ranked by impact × ease
1. **[Pass # · Section]** — [specific fix; one sentence]
2. …
(maximum 10; cut anything below the 10th in importance)

---

## Optional: agent prepend block
```text
Follow the page auditor's output for <route>. Non-negotiables:
- …
- …

**Rules for the output:**

- **Always** name the six section letters A–F, even if a section is short.
- **Always** quote copy verbatim in passes C and E5 — paraphrases lose the diagnostic.
- **Never** produce more than **10 priority fixes**. If you have 15 candidates, rank and drop the bottom 5.
- **Rank by impact × ease** — a 1-hour fix that lifts the page 30% beats a 20-hour overhaul that lifts it 40%.

---

## Principles — internalize before judging

These are the standard of quality the audit enforces:

1. **No generic SaaS tone.** Movemental is editorial, calm, authoritative — closer to a Harper's essay than a Salesforce landing page. "Transform your organization with AI" is a failure state.
2. **No inflated AI claims.** AI is a function of **corpus + graph + governance**. Do not let a page imply magic, autonomy, or replacement of judgment.
3. **No decorative UI without meaning.** Every visual element must advance the argument. "Looks premium" is not a reason.
4. **Sequencing matters.** Rhetorical position is a feature. A correct line in the wrong place is still wrong.
5. **Pages don't duplicate the full thesis unless they own it.** If `/fragmentation` owns the walkthrough, the homepage compresses and links; if `/book` owns the field guide frame, audience pages cite — they do not re-open.
6. **Typography is part of the argument.** Italic serif emphasis is a precision instrument. Headline hierarchy tracks the structure of the claim.
7. **Proof burden rises with claim strength.** A quantitative claim requires a citation or a move to an article. A strong unverified claim gets softened or moved.
8. **Examples and systems often outperform abstract paragraphs.** When in doubt, swap a thesis restatement for a concrete example or a shown system.
9. **Formation language stays concrete.** Donor letters, pastoral care, faculty knowledge, governance, discernment. Not "impact," "journey," or "transformation" as floating abstractions.
10. **"Modern editorial" ≠ "minimal statements floating in whitespace."** Breathing layout is good; empty layout is evasive. A page should have density commensurate with its ambition.

---

## Danger to avoid

This skill is **not a general design critic.** It is a **Movemental page auditor.** Judge pages according to:

- **Movemental site architecture** — artifact ownership, cross-page flow
- **Movemental rhetoric** — vocabulary, voice, proof posture
- **Movemental design language** — DESIGN.md pillars, tonal stacking, semantic tokens
- **Narrative flow** — tension → clarification → structure → proof → action, adjusted for page type

Do **not** import generic UX platitudes ("above the fold," "reduce cognitive load," "increase conversion," "use social proof") unless they are also Movemental standards and grounded in the canonical artifacts.

---

## Workflow summary (what to do when invoked)

1. **Gather inputs** — route, type, source, artifact family, primary/secondary. Confirm what's missing.
2. **Read ground truth** — starred files + per-page-type reference. Note what you read in the output.
3. **Run all six passes** in order. Quote copy verbatim in C and E5.
4. **Draft output** using the template. Every section A–F must appear.
5. **Rank priority fixes** — max 10, by impact × ease.
6. **Offer an agent prepend block** if the user plans to hand the audit to an implementer agent.

Keep the final audit **tight**. A good audit is 700–1,200 words — long enough to be specific, short enough to be acted on.