Prose Critique
Run adversarial fiction critiques on drafts so weak structure, voice drift, or continuity breaks surface before you publish serial fiction, game lore, or narrative marketing.
Overview
Prose Critique is a journey-wide agent skill that adversarially reviews narrative fiction drafts by focus area—usable whenever a solo builder needs to stress-test story quality before committing to publication or integra
Install
npx skills add https://github.com/haowjy/creative-writing-skills --skill prose-critiqueWhat is this skill?
- Adversarial methodology: find what fails instead of confirming the writer’s assumptions
- 5 focus areas—structure, character, voice, prose, continuity—each with a dedicated resource guide
- Depth-first on the assigned focus rather than a shallow full-draft skim
- Self-selects focus dimensions when the prompt omits an area
- model-invocable: false—designed as explicit human/agent-invoked reference workflow
- 5 focus areas with dedicated resource guides (structure, character, voice, prose, continuity)
Adoption & trust: 1 installs on skills.sh; 241 GitHub stars; 3/3 security scanners passed (skills.sh audits).
What problem does it solve?
You finished a fiction draft but only get vague encouragement, so structural holes and continuity bugs stay hidden until readers complain.
Who is it for?
Solo authors, game writers, and content builders who want structured, skeptical feedback on fiction drafts at any revision pass.
Skip if: Builders who want quick compliments, non-fiction-only edits, or automated publishing without a human/agent reading pass.
When should I use this skill?
Reviewing drafts, evaluating prose quality, or assessing narrative changes at any stage of fiction development.
What do I get? / Deliverables
You receive a focus-driven critique that names concrete failures in plot, character, voice, prose, or continuity so the next revision targets real weaknesses.
- Focus-area critique identifying failures and revision targets
- Notes aligned to structure, character, voice, prose, or continuity resources
Recommended Skills
Journey fit
Useful at every journey phase - explore requirements and options before committing to a direction.
Where it fits
Compare two outline versions by running structure-focused critique on sample scenes before you commit to a series arc.
Stress-test a pilot chapter for voice and dialogue before you build a subscription fiction product around it.
Deep-dive prose and continuity on a full manuscript while you integrate chapters into your content pipeline.
Run a final character-motivation pass on the launch manuscript to catch stakes regressions.
Critique weekly serial installments for pacing drift so long-running readers stay engaged.
How it compares
Use instead of generic “rate my chapter” chat prompts that default to shallow praise.
Common Questions / FAQ
Who is prose-critique for?
Indie fiction writers, narrative designers, and solo builders shipping story-driven content who want an agent-guided adversarial read—not a cheerleading pass.
When should I use prose-critique?
During Idea research when comparing story concepts, Validate prototype when testing sample chapters, Build docs while drafting manuscripts or lore, Ship review before publication, and Grow content when refreshing serial installments—you assign a focus (structure, character, voice
Is prose-critique safe to install?
It is reference-only prose methodology with no implied shell or network access; review the Security Audits panel on this page before adding it to your agent stack.
SKILL.md
READMESKILL.md - Prose Critique
# Prose Critique Find what doesn't work. The writer already believes their draft works: challenge that assumption. A critique that says "well done" without digging is worse than no critique, because it creates false confidence. ## Your Focus Your prompt specifies a focus area. Go deep on the assigned focus rather than skimming everything. Each focus area has a dedicated resource with detailed guidance: - [`resources/structure.md`](resources/structure.md): plot logic, pacing, scene necessity, stakes, setup/payoff - [`resources/character.md`](resources/character.md): motivation coherence, arc progression, relationship dynamics - [`resources/voice.md`](resources/voice.md): dialogue quality, POV consistency, subtext, voice drift - [`resources/prose.md`](resources/prose.md): line-level quality, rhythm, clarity, repetition, show vs tell - [`resources/continuity.md`](resources/continuity.md): facts, timeline, geography, character state Read the relevant resource when assigned that focus. If no focus is specified, assess the draft yourself: figure out which dimensions matter most for this piece, read those resources, and focus there. Even with an assigned focus, flag issues outside it if they're clearly serious. A voice reviewer who notices a plot hole should say so. ## What Makes a Good Finding Good findings share these qualities: **Specific.** Reference the chapter, scene, paragraph, or line. "The pacing has issues" is not a finding. **Reasoned.** Explain why it matters, not just that it exists. A POV break is only interesting if you can describe what it costs: reader trust, immersion, character distinction. **Directable.** The writer should know what to do after reading your finding. If the fix isn't clear, say what investigation or decision is needed. **Non-obvious.** Spell-check already caught the typos. You're here for things that require understanding context, intent, and interaction between story elements. ### What wastes everyone's time - Vague "this could be stronger" without explaining how or why - Restating what the prose says without identifying a problem - Praising things that work (unless specifically asked for balanced feedback) - Findings about established story decisions the author already committed to: critique the execution, not the premise ## Communicating Impact Make it obvious which findings are serious and which are minor. The orchestrator or author triaging your findings has context you don't: they know what's intentional, what's set up for later, what's a known compromise. Give them a clear signal about severity. Lead with the things that damage the reading experience: broken causation, character inconsistency, lost tension, confused POV. Let the smaller observations follow. Only flag issues you can tie to a concrete reader cost. ## The Adversarial Mindset Think about how the prose fails, not how it succeeds: - **Motivation.** Does this character have a reason to do what they're doing here? Would they actually say this? - **Causation.** Does this scene follow logically from the previous one? Is the character's reaction earned by what happened? - **Tension.** Is the conflict real? Are stakes at risk? Does the scene resolve too easily? - **POV discipline.** Does the narrator know things they shouldn't? Are other characters' internal states reported as fact? - **Voice consistency.** Does the narrator sound like the same person throughout? Do characters maintain their distinct voices? - **Reader experience.** Where would a reader's attention drift? Where would they feel confused, cheated, or talked down to? Don't be adversarial for its own sake. If a section is genuinel