Bmad Editorial Review Structure

• content (required) -- Document to review (markdown, plain text, or structured content)
• style_guide (optional) -- Project-specific style guide. When provided, overrides all generic principles in this task (except CONTENT IS SACROSANCT). The style guide is the final authority on tone, structure, and language choices.
• purpose (optional) -- Document's intended purpose (e.g., 'quickstart tutorial', 'API reference', 'conceptual overview')
• target_audience (optional) -- Who reads this? (e.g., 'new users', 'experienced developers', 'decision makers')
• reader_type (optional, default: "humans") -- 'humans' (default) preserves comprehension aids; 'llm' optimizes for precision and density
• length_target (optional) -- Target reduction (e.g., '30% shorter', 'half the length', 'no limit')

Principles

• Comprehension through calibration: Optimize for the minimum words needed to maintain understanding
• Front-load value: Critical information comes first; nice-to-know comes last (or goes)
• One source of truth: If information appears identically twice, consolidate
• Scope discipline: Content that belongs in a different document should be cut or linked
• Propose, don't execute: Output recommendations -- user decides what to accept
• CONTENT IS SACROSANCT: Never challenge ideas -- only optimize how they're organized.

Human-Reader Principles

These elements serve human comprehension and engagement -- preserve unless clearly wasteful:

• Visual aids: Diagrams, images, and flowcharts anchor understanding
• Expectation-setting: "What You'll Learn" helps readers confirm they're in the right place
• Reader's Journey: Organize content biologically (linear progression), not logically (database)
• Mental models: Overview before details prevents cognitive overload
• Warmth: Encouraging tone reduces anxiety for new users
• Whitespace: Admonitions and callouts provide visual breathing room
• Summaries: Recaps help retention; they're reinforcement, not redundancy
• Examples: Concrete illustrations make abstract concepts accessible
• Engagement: "Flow" techniques (transitions, variety) are functional, not "fluff" -- they maintain attention

LLM-Reader Principles

When reader_type='llm', optimize for PRECISION and UNAMBIGUITY:

• Dependency-first: Define concepts before usage to minimize hallucination risk
• Cut emotional language, encouragement, and orientation sections
• IF concept is well-known from training (e.g., "conventional commits", "REST APIs"): Reference the standard -- don't re-teach it. ELSE: Be explicit -- don't assume the LLM will infer correctly.
• Use consistent terminology -- same word for same concept throughout
• Eliminate hedging ("might", "could", "generally") -- use direct statements
• Prefer structured formats (tables, lists, YAML) over prose
• Reference known standards ("conventional commits", "Google style guide") to leverage training
• STILL PROVIDE EXAMPLES even for known standards -- grounds the LLM in your specific expectation
• Unambiguous references -- no unclear antecedents ("it", "this", "the above")
• Note: LLM documents may be LONGER than human docs in some areas (more explicit) while shorter in others (no warmth)

Structure Models

Tutorial/Guide (Linear)

Applicability: Tutorials, detailed guides, how-to articles, walkthroughs

• Prerequisites: Setup/Context MUST precede action
• Sequence: Steps must follow strict chronological or logical dependency order
• Goal-oriented: clear 'Definition of Done' at the end

Reference/Database

Applicability: API docs, glossaries, configuration references, cheat sheets

• Random Access: No narrative flow required; user jumps to specific item
• MECE: Topics are Mutually Exclusive and Collectively Exhaustive
• Consistent Schema: Every item follows identical structure (e.g., Signature to Params to Returns)

Explanation (Conceptual)

Applicability: Deep dives, architecture overviews, conceptual guides, whitepapers, project context

• Abstract to Concrete: Definition to Context to Implementation/Example
• Scaffolding: Complex ideas built on established foundations

Prompt/Task Definition (Functional)

Applicability: BMAD tasks, prompts, system instructions, XML definitions

• Meta-first: Inputs, usage constraints, and context defined before instructions
• Separation of Concerns: Instructions (logic) separate from Data (content)
• Step-by-step: Execution flow must be explicit and ordered

Strategic/Context (Pyramid)

Applicability: PRDs, research reports, proposals, decision records

• Top-down: Conclusion/Status/Recommendation starts the document
• Grouping: Supporting context grouped logically below the headline
• Ordering: Most critical information first
• MECE: Arguments/Groups are Mutually Exclusive and Collectively Exhaustive
• Evidence: Data supports arguments, never leads

STEPS

Step 1: Validate Input

• Check if content is empty or contains fewer than 3 words
• If empty or fewer than 3 words, HALT with error: "Content too short for substantive review (minimum 3 words required)"
• Validate reader_type is "humans" or "llm" (or not provided, defaulting to "humans")
• If reader_type is invalid, HALT with error: "Invalid reader_type. Must be 'humans' or 'llm'"
• Identify document type and structure (headings, sections, lists, etc.)
• Note the current word count and section count

Step 2: Understand Purpose

• If purpose was provided, use it; otherwise infer from content
• If target_audience was provided, use it; otherwise infer from content
• Identify the core question the document answers
• State in one sentence: "This document exists to help [audience] accomplish [goal]"
• Select the most appropriate structural model from Structure Models based on purpose/audience
• Note reader_type and which principles apply (Human-Reader Principles or LLM-Reader Principles)

Step 3: Structural Analysis (CRITICAL)

• If style_guide provided, consult style_guide now and note its key requirements -- these override default principles for this analysis
• Map the document structure: list each major section with its word count
• Evaluate structure against the selected model's primary rules (e.g., 'Does recommendation come first?' for Pyramid)
• For each section, answer: Does this directly serve the stated purpose?
• If reader_type='humans', for each comprehension aid (visual, summary, example, callout), answer: Does this help readers understand or stay engaged?
• Identify sections that could be: cut entirely, merged with another, moved to a different location, or split
• Identify true redundancies: identical information repeated without purpose (not summaries or reinforcement)
• Identify scope violations: content that belongs in a different document
• Identify burying: critical information hidden deep in the document

Step 4: Flow Analysis

• Assess the reader's journey: Does the sequence match how readers will use this?
• Identify premature detail: explanation given before the reader needs it
• Identify missing scaffolding: complex ideas without adequate setup
• Identify anti-patterns: FAQs that should be inline, appendices that should be cut, overviews that repeat the body verbatim
• If reader_type='humans', assess pacing: Is there enough whitespace and visual variety to maintain attention?

Step 5: Generate Recommendations

• Compile all findings into prioritized recommendations
• Categorize each recommendation: CUT (remove entirely), MERGE (combine sections), MOVE (reorder), CONDENSE (shorten significantly), QUESTION (needs author decision), PRESERVE (explicitly keep -- for elements that might seem cuttable but serve comprehension)
• For each recommendation, state the rationale in one sentence
• Estimate impact: how many words would this save (or cost, for PRESERVE)?
• If length_target was provided, assess whether recommendations meet it
• If reader_type='humans' and recommendations would cut comprehension aids, flag with warning: "This cut may impact reader comprehension/engagement"

Step 6: Output Results

• Output document summary (purpose, audience, reader_type, current length)
• Output the recommendation list in priority order
• Output estimated total reduction if all recommendations accepted
• If no recommendations, output: "No substantive changes recommended -- document structure is sound"

Use the following output format:

## Document Summary
- **Purpose:** [inferred or provided purpose]
- **Audience:** [inferred or provided audience]
- **Reader type:** [selected reader type]
- **Structure model:** [selected structure model]
- **Current length:** [X] words across [Y] sections

## Recommendations

### 1. [CUT/MERGE/MOVE/CONDENSE/QUESTION/PRESERVE] - [Section or element name]
**Rationale:** [One sentence explanation]
**Impact:** ~[X] words
**Comprehension note:** [If applicable, note impact on reader understanding]

### 2. ...

## Summary
- **Total recommendations:** [N]
- **Estimated reduction:** [X] words ([Y]% of original)
- **Meets length target:** [Yes/No/No target specified]
- **Comprehension trade-offs:** [Note any cuts that sacrifice reader engagement for brevity]

HALT CONDITIONS

• HALT with error if content is empty or fewer than 3 words
• HALT with error if reader_type is not "humans" or "llm"
• If no structural issues found, output "No substantive changes recommended" (this is valid completion, not an error)