Movemental Publish Gate

Run the publication gate on Movemental content: $ARGUMENTS

$ARGUMENTS is a file path, a directory, or pasted prose. Prefix with gate: for verdict only (default), or fix: to run the routed fix skills after reporting. If empty, ask what to gate.

This skill answers one question: is this safe to publish on movemental.ai yet, and if not, exactly what blocks it? It does not rewrite prose itself — it diagnoses, decides, and routes. The specialist skills do the fixing.

How to run it

1. Read the target in full, including frontmatter. Note audience_tier / canon_section / slug / author / where it will live (docs/articles/, docs/build/research/articles/, /footnotes, /voices, home-tier).
2. Walk all ten gates below in order. Each gate returns one of: RED (blocks publication), YELLOW (fix strongly recommended, author may override with reason), GREEN (clear). Do not skip a gate because the piece "looks clean" — the slop and citation gates fail most often on polished-looking drafts.
3. Apply the hard gates (bottom of file). Any one hard-gate hit forces an overall RED regardless of the other nine.
4. Emit the verdict block (template at the bottom). Be specific: quote the offending line, name the file:line, and name the exact next action.
5. If invoked with fix:, after reporting, launch the routed skills for each RED/YELLOW gate (see the routing column).

Higher public surfaces raise the bar. A /footnotes claim or a home-tier stat is held to the strictest reading of every gate; an internal raw/ research note is held mainly to citation integrity and doctrine.

The ten gates

1. Register & AI-shaped prose → does plain-prose / movemental-prose need to run?

The user's first question is always "does the prose skill need to run?" Answer it here.

Scan for the register markers (see references/red-light-checklist.md §1, and the watchlist that ships with plain-prose): substrate, scaffold, leverage, surface (v.), artifact, load-bearing, robust, orchestrate, operationalize, unlock, north star, flywheel, unpack, interrogate, problematize, deeply/fundamentally, "it's worth noting," "at the end of the day." Run the costume-or-term-of-art test before flagging — a real term of art in its home field is fine.

Also scan for AI cadence tells: stacked tricolons, symmetrical "It's not X, it's Y" repeated, em-dash overload, hedge stacking, a conclusion that only restates the intro, "In today's rapidly evolving…", title-cased section headers, bullet lists where prose belongs.

• RED — register markers are load-bearing (the argument leans on costume words) OR three or more distinct AI-cadence tells. → Route to plain-prose (register/jargon) then movemental-prose (Movemental line-level cadence).
• YELLOW — a handful of swappable costume words or one or two cadence tells. → Recommend plain-prose.
• GREEN — reads like a person talking to one senior leader.

2. Citation & evidence integrity (EEAT dimension B)

The backbone. Every material or empirical claim that a reader could act on or quote must be traceable. Label each load-bearing claim: Sourced (author/date/publication/URL) · Attributed (named org, no specific report) · Unsourced · Contradicted (better evidence weakens it).

• RED — any load-bearing claim is Unsourced on a public surface; a Contradicted or fabricated-precision stat is used (e.g. a bare "68%", "studies show," broken-telephone figures); empirical claims presented as theological/ethical certainty without a layer label.
• YELLOW — claims are Attributed but not Sourced; gaps not yet marked "to verify."
• GREEN — material facts Sourced, limits stated, primary + synthesis clearly separated.
• Reference: docs/build/notes/eeat-research-content-qualification-rubric.md (movemental-ai repo) Dimension B and the per-claim confidence table; docs/research/authoritative-sources-ai-nonprofits-faith-formation.md.

3. Factual accuracy & hallucination

Names, dates, book/article titles, org names, quotes, and links must be real and verifiable. AI drafts invent plausible titles, misattribute quotes, and fabricate URLs.

• RED — a quote/attribution/figure can't be traced; an invented or misremembered book title, org, or person; a dead or fabricated link; a real person assigned words or positions they didn't say.
• YELLOW — a citation that's probably right but unverified; a paraphrase that risks misquoting.
• Verify links with WebFetch or Bash (curl -I) when in doubt. Cross-check named entities against the leader research and corpus before trusting them.

4. Doctrine alignment → does movemental-narrative-audit need to run?

Check against Movemental canon (see references/red-light-checklist.md §4 and the canonical doctrine doc).

• RED (hard gate) — doctrine drift: movement leaders placed as a fourth audience funnel/sibling card; any recruiting/roster/"nominate a leader" framing; the public label for the movement-leader surface is anything other than "Trusted voices" (not "Committed voices," "Scenius," "ambassadors," "partners"); "Scenius" used as a public H1; the two-intelligences / six-stage / infrastructure model misstated.
• YELLOW — framework vocabulary drifts but the argument is recoverable. → Route to movemental-narrative-audit.
• Canon: docs/build/strategy/movement-leaders-as-ecosystem-layer.md; CLAUDE.md "Canonical doctrine."

5. EEAT self-evidence

Does the piece earn Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trust — or just assert them? Honest limits and counter-arguments stated? Author identifiable? Quotable, stable claims a machine could lift?

• RED — makes authority claims it doesn't back; no honest limits on a piece whose whole job is credibility; anonymous on a surface that needs a named voice.
• YELLOW — thin counter-argument pass; few extractable claims. Reference EEAT rubric Dimensions C and E.

6. Mechanical correctness

• RED — leftover placeholders ([TODO], [RE-VALIDATE], lorem, TK, XXX, <placeholder>); broken internal links; missing/invalid frontmatter where the surface contract requires it (src/lib/articles-schema.ts); a duplicate of existing canon (grep the articles/research index before publishing a "new" piece).
• YELLOW — heading hierarchy skips, prose width, spelling/typos, markdown that renders wrong.

7. Legal / sensitivity / pre-decision

• RED (hard gate) — persona/seat entities presented as real leaders; unconfirmed pricing, scholarships, partnerships, or outcomes stated as fact; anything that "cannot be quoted without misleading" (EEAT Dimension E ≤ 4); private/internal strategy leaking onto a public surface without redaction.

8. Scope & audience fit

• YELLOW — leader dossier content pushed into the org research series (different product); marketing copy dressed as research; internal ops notes promoted to a public article. Cap and redirect rather than publish in the wrong place.

9. Originality & duplication

• RED — re-argues "settled thinking" (corpus-audit Part 3) without new primary evidence; near-duplicate of an existing article. → Mine for footnotes instead of publishing.

10. Surface readiness (the wiring)

• YELLOW — claims not yet mapped to the claim + cite + footnote registry shape (src/lib/citations/eeat-registry.ts); no stable slug; internal links to canon not named. Not a publication blocker by itself, but list it so it isn't forgotten.

Hard gates — any one forces overall RED

1. A load-bearing claim is Unsourced, or a Contradicted / fabricated stat appears, on a public surface (Gate 2).
2. An unverifiable quote, attribution, title, or link (Gate 3).
3. Doctrine drift — fourth funnel, recruiting/roster, wrong public label, "Scenius" as public H1 (Gate 4).
4. Placeholders / RE-VALIDATE markers left in the body (Gate 6).
5. Persona/unconfirmed entities or pre-decision facts stated as real (Gate 7).

A piece can be beautifully written and still RED on any of these. Prose polish never overrides an integrity gate.

Verdict block (emit this)

PUBLISH GATE — [path or title]
Surface: [docs/articles | /footnotes | /voices | research raw | home-tier | …]
Overall: 🔴 RED — do not publish  |  🟡 YELLOW — publish with fixes  |  🟢 GREEN — clear

Gate                         Light   Blocking finding (file:line)            Route / fix
1  Register & AI prose        🔴/🟡/🟢  …                                       plain-prose · movemental-prose
2  Citation integrity         …       …                                       (fix sourcing) · EEAT rubric B
3  Factual / hallucination    …       …                                       verify before publish
4  Doctrine alignment         …       …                                       movemental-narrative-audit
5  EEAT self-evidence         …       …
6  Mechanical correctness     …       …
7  Legal / sensitivity        …       …
8  Scope & audience fit       …       …
9  Originality / duplication  …       …
10 Surface readiness          …       …

BLOCKERS (must clear before publish):
  - …

NEXT ACTION: [the single most important thing, named precisely — e.g. "Run plain-prose on ¶2–5, then source the '68%' stat in Gate 2, then re-gate."]

When unsure between two lights, take the stricter one and say why. The gate exists to keep slop and mistakes off movemental.ai — false-green is the only truly costly error.

What this skill is not

• Not a rewriter. It diagnoses and routes; plain-prose and movemental-prose do prose fixes, movemental-narrative-audit fixes doctrine/argument.
• Not the EEAT scoring rubric — that 0–100 model (eeat-research-content-qualification-rubric.md) decides whether a corpus doc is worth promoting. This gate decides whether a piece already chosen for publication is safe to ship. Use the rubric to pick; use this gate to clear.
• Not alan-voice / article-audit — if the piece is Alan-Hirsch-corpus voice, stop and route there instead.