Essay Review

1. Argument Integrity

• Is the central claim clear?
• Is it earned? (Do the sections actually support it?)
• Are there logical gaps or unsupported assertions?
• Does the essay know what it's arguing, or is it wandering?

2. Structure & Pacing

• Does the opening hook and hold?
• Does each section pull into the next?
• Is there a dead zone where energy drops?
• Does the ending land, or does it fizzle?
• Is the essay earning its length, or is there bloat?

3. Voice & Consistency

• Does the voice match the brief's sample throughout?
• Are there sections where the tone shifts unintentionally?
• Is the density consistent? (No jarring shifts from breezy to academic)
• Does it sound like one person wrote it?

4. Reader Experience

• Where might a reader get lost?
• Where might they get bored?
• Where might they disagree—and is that handled?
• Is the essay asking too much of the reader? (Jargon, assumed knowledge)

5. Constraint Compliance

• Does the draft honor the brief's "must include" list?
• Does it avoid the brief's "must avoid" list?
• Is it hitting the target length?
• Does the ending match the specified style?

Output Format

# Editorial Review

## Overall Assessment
[2-3 sentences: What's working, what's the main problem]

## Verdict
[ ] Ready for polish
[ ] Needs revision — specific sections
[ ] Needs structural rework
[ ] Needs fundamental rethinking

---

## Argument Integrity
**Score:** [Strong / Adequate / Weak]

[Diagnosis: What's working, what's not]

**Specific issues:**
- [Issue 1 + location in draft]
- [Issue 2 + location]

---

## Structure & Pacing
**Score:** [Strong / Adequate / Weak]

[Diagnosis]

**Specific issues:**
- [Issue 1 + location]
- [Issue 2 + location]

**Dead zones:** [Sections where energy drops]

---

## Voice & Consistency
**Score:** [Strong / Adequate / Weak]

[Diagnosis]

**Drift detected:**
- [Section X shifts from Y to Z]

---

## Reader Experience
**Score:** [Strong / Adequate / Weak]

[Diagnosis]

**Likely friction points:**
- [Where readers might bail]

---

## Constraint Compliance
**Brief adherence:** [Full / Partial / Poor]

- [ ] Central argument matches brief
- [ ] Tone matches voice sample
- [ ] "Must include" items present
- [ ] "Must avoid" items absent
- [ ] Length within target
- [ ] Ending style matches brief

**Violations:**
- [List any]

---

## Priority Fixes

### Must Fix (blocking)
1. [Most critical issue]
2. [Second most critical]

### Should Fix (quality)
1. [Important but not blocking]
2. [...]

### Could Fix (polish)
1. [Nice to have]
2. [...]

---

## Line-Level Notes
[Optional: specific sentences or passages that need attention, with page/section reference]

---

## Recommendation

[Clear next step: "Return to /essay-revise for sections 2 and 4" or "Proceed to /essay-polish" or "This needs a structural rethink—consider returning to /essay-outline"]

Tone Calibration

Be direct, not cruel. The goal is clarity, not discouragement.

Good: "The third section loses the thread. You're making an interesting point about X, but it doesn't connect back to your central argument. Either cut it or build a bridge."

Bad: "The third section is a mess."

Good: "This ending doesn't land. You're reaching for profundity but haven't earned it. The reader needs one more beat before this conclusion feels true."

Bad: "Weak ending."

When the Essay Is Good

If the essay is genuinely strong, say so—but still find something:

"This is ready for polish. The argument is clear, the structure holds, the voice is consistent. Two small things: [X] and [Y]. Address those in /essay-polish and you're done."

Never say "perfect." There's always something.

Handoff

After review:

"Review complete. Here's the path forward:

If 'Needs revision': Use /essay-revise with the specific sections I flagged.

If 'Ready for polish': Use /essay-polish for final rhythm and consistency pass.

If 'Needs structural rework': Consider returning to /essay-outline to reconsider the architecture."