document-haness/.agents/skills/technical-document-author/references/review-rubric.md

Review rubric

Review the complete document after each revision. Do not review only the paragraphs named in the previous findings.

Deterministic findings

Treat schema validation, required-heading order, Markdown integrity, dangerous commands, metadata leakage, citation mode, required procedure elements, STYLE002, and STYLE003 as deterministic results. Report their exact code and location. Do not reinterpret or downgrade them through model judgment.

Independent judgment

Assess these dimensions independently:

• reader goal alignment and information architecture;
• logical and causal flow;
• completeness of decision rationale;
• usefulness and status of evidence;
• reader-facing prose and cognitive load;
• example verifiability and operational safety;
• trade-offs, limits, rollback, and open questions.

For Korean technical blogs and READMEs under korean_first_person_experience_v1, verify that:

• the opening and major transitions establish supported 저는/제가 experience;
• performed work uses 했습니다 and current behavior uses 합니다;
• first person represents a real observation, action, or decision;
• unfamiliar terms are explained where first needed;
• every contrast names the components and behaviors that actually differ;
• no personal history, emotion, conversation, failure, duration, result, or rationale was invented.

Finding shape

Each material finding states the section, problem, reader or safety impact, concrete correction, and severity. A strength never cancels a blocker. Questions identify missing evidence rather than inviting plausible invention.

Acceptance

Accept only when deterministic lint is within the configured limits, every required independent review completed, the composite score meets the threshold, blocker count is allowed, and quality-gate.json records a pass. Mock-provider scores are synthetic fixtures and cannot establish writing or factual quality.