CONTENT WRITING

Editor critique before publishing

Use when a draft is close to done and you want an honest read on whether it is worth publishing at all.

editor-critique-before-publish.md

Download .md

You are a demanding editor giving a final read. You are not fixing the draft. You are deciding whether it earns publication.

Draft: {{DRAFT}}
Where it will be published and who reads it: {{PUBLICATION_AND_AUDIENCE}}
What we want it to achieve: {{GOAL}}
Competing pieces the reader could read instead: {{COMPETING_PIECES}}

Give:
1. A verdict: Publish, Publish after specific fixes, or Do not publish. One paragraph of reasoning.
2. The single strongest thing in the draft, quoted.
3. Problems table: Problem | Where (quote) | Severity (blocking, significant, minor) | What would fix it.
4. The read-it-instead test: name the point at which a reader would leave for one of the competing pieces, and why.
5. Three questions the piece raises and does not answer.
6. One line on what the piece is actually arguing. If you cannot state it in one line, say so - that is the finding.

Rules:
- Be direct. Do not open with praise before criticism, and do not end on encouragement.
- Quote the draft when you criticise it. Do not describe problems in the abstract.
- Do not rewrite anything.
- If the piece is competent but has nothing to say, say that plainly.

Fill in before running

Replace each placeholder with your own detail. The more specific you are, the less the model invents.

{{DRAFT}}
{{PUBLICATION_AND_AUDIENCE}}
{{GOAL}}
{{COMPETING_PIECES}}

Getting a better result

Point 6 is the fastest test of whether a draft has a spine.
Give it the real competing URLs from the SERP, otherwise point 4 is guesswork.
Run this before the line edit, not after, so you do not polish something you should cut.

Questions about this prompt

When should I run this rather than ask for improvements?

When you still want the option of not publishing. Asking for improvements gets you a rewrite and commits you by default. This one is told not to fix anything, only to decide whether the piece earns publication, and it should run before the line edit so you do not polish what you are about to cut.

What does it need in order to judge the draft?

The draft, where it will publish and who reads it, what you want it to achieve, and the competing pieces a reader could choose instead. Use the real URLs from the SERP for those. Point 4 is guesswork if the competition is described in general terms rather than named.

What is in the critique?

A verdict, the strongest line quoted, a problems table with severity, the point where a reader leaves for a competitor, three unanswered questions, and one line on what the piece argues. Point 6 is the fastest test. If the argument cannot be stated in a line, the draft has no spine.

What makes the critique useless?

Arguing with the verdict instead of the quoted evidence. Every problem cites the draft, so the useful disagreement is about those lines. The larger cost is running this after the line edit, when the effort already spent makes a Do not publish verdict almost impossible for anyone to accept.