Review Google Docs Article

Review a TrueProfit Google Docs Article

This skill runs a structured pre-publish QA review of a TrueProfit blog article that lives in a Google Doc. The review is deliberately modular — each step is a self-contained QA pass with its own reference file. Steps 1–4 (links, CTA image, Further Reading, FAQ redundancy) exist today; future steps (tone/humanization, data benchmarks, formatting, …) slot in the same way.

How to run a review

1. Ask which step(s) the user wants if they didn't say. Default to running all available steps in order (1 → 2 → 3 → 4).
2. For each requested step, open its reference file and follow it exactly.
3. Deliver each step's findings as a report in chat (not a file) using the structure the step defines. If running multiple steps, give one clearly-headed section per step.

Available steps

Steps 2 and 3 share one pass over the doc's headings, so scripts/review_structure.py runs both together. Step 4 is model-driven (judgment about intent), no script.

Adding a step later: write references/step-N-<name>.md describing that pass, then add a row to the table above and a line to the "How to run" default order. Keep each step's heavy detail in its own reference file so this orchestrator stays short.

Inputs the user must provide

• Google Doc URL — the article to review. The URL's tab=t.xxxx parameter names the exact tab to review; that tab is the whole scope. The doc must be readable by the link-checker app's Google service account, or shared as "anyone with the link can view".
• URLs to check — the candidate internal links, one per line, in the format https://www.trueprofit.io/blog/some-page | Page title. The title after | is optional but helps judge relevance. This is the list Step 1 compares against the doc.
• Must-have URLs (Step 1, optional) — a subset of links that must be present. Paste into the app's Must-have URLs box; matching rows come back flagged ⭐ Must-have and are treated as must-insert (not subject to the selective judgment).
• Main keyword (Step 2 only) — a kebab-case slug for the CTA link's utm_campaign. Don't ask up front: derive it from the doc and confirm with the user (see Step 2).

If a step's required input is missing, ask for it before running that step.

Ground rules for every step

• Review ONLY the tab in the URL — never the whole document. A TrueProfit blog doc almost always has sibling tabs beside the article (an n8n flow draft, an Insights & outline notes tab, AI-research dumps). These are separate tabs, not scratch content inside the article, and must never be flagged as "delete these blocks." The Drive reader (read_file_content) concatenates every tab into one blob — do not use it for this skill. Read article text with scripts/dump_tab.py (it honors the URL's tab= param and emits just that tab, with links inline as [anchor](url)). The structure script (review_structure.py) is already tab-scoped the same way. If a tab= param is missing, the scripts fall back to the first tab and say so — confirm the intended tab with the user rather than reviewing everything.
• Advisory by default; one exception. Every step produces recommendations the user applies themselves — except Step 2's CTA insertion, which edits the Doc in place via scripts/review_structure.py. Always dry-run and show the plan first; only --apply after the user confirms (especially the utm_campaign keyword). Never claim an edit was made unless the apply run actually succeeded.
• Be selective, not exhaustive. For opportunities (like missing links), recommend only what genuinely makes the content more valuable or better for SEO. Quality over coverage.
• Show your reasoning. For every recommendation, say why (SEO value, relevance, accuracy, authority) so the user can trust or overrule it quickly.