Files
claude-plugins/fiction-assistance/commands/final-review.md

40 lines
1.6 KiB
Markdown
Raw Normal View History

refactor(fiction-assistance)!: reduce to portable guidance and analysis (v2.0.0) Strip the Universalis-specific vault layout and card-management machinery. The plugin is now a general-purpose fiction toolkit: nine commands that take a manuscript path/glob/selection via \$ARGUMENTS and write their output to the conversation. Surviving commands, flattened into commands/: - analyze-story: structural and statistical analysis - bechdel-test: representation tests (Bechdel + related) - check-continuity: plot/character/world continuity - check-voice: per-character voice consistency - developmental-review: structural feedback on a scene/chapter - extract-research: world-building and research inventory - final-review: synthesis of prior-phase reviews - generate-timeline: chronology with consistency checks - strategic-review: craft-based critique with priority ranking Removed (vault and card management): 10 update-*-cards commands, cleanup-generated, update-changed, update-links, update-chapter-summaries, validate-story, validate-pdf, score-scenes. The original bespoke command set is preserved in 65c29d7 for recovery. Agent (line-editor) and skill (reviewing-fiction) were already portable and are unchanged. plugin.json no longer needs the commands subdirectory paths since the layout is flat. Marketplace description updated to reflect the general-purpose scope. BREAKING CHANGE: All update-*-cards, cleanup-generated, update-changed, update-links, update-chapter-summaries, validate-story, validate-pdf, and score-scenes commands are removed. perform-bechdel-tests is renamed to bechdel-test. review-final is renamed to final-review. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-05-16 18:28:53 -05:00
---
description: Synthesize prior phase reviews into a final manuscript assessment
argument-hint: "[path to manuscript and/or prior review notes]"
allowed-tools: [Read, Glob, Grep]
---
Using whatever prior-phase review notes the user provides (or that exist in the working directory under names like `review-*.md`, `notes/review/`, etc.), produce a final, integrated assessment of the manuscript at `$ARGUMENTS`.
## Story architecture
1. **Inciting incident** — clear, compelling, well-placed?
2. **Plot points** — major turning points obvious and impactful?
3. **Climax** — does it feel earned and satisfying?
4. **Resolution** — does it resolve the key conflicts appropriately?
## Integration analysis
5. **Scene flow** — do scenes connect logically and maintain momentum?
6. **Pacing rhythm** — variation between fast and slow?
7. **Character arc completion** — do characters grow consistently?
8. **Setting consistency** — locations and time periods coherent?
9. **Theme reinforcement** — do plot, character, and setting support the central themes?
## Structural recommendations
- Scenes to add, remove, or combine
- Pacing adjustments
- Character development gaps
- Setting opportunities
- Overall readability improvements
## Final assessment
- The manuscript's greatest strengths
- Top 35 areas needing improvement
- Concrete action steps for revision
- Overall readiness assessment for the writer's intended market
Present the synthesis directly in the conversation. Quote specifically from prior reviews and from the manuscript to support each point — name the chapter/scene and the issue. The goal is a revision roadmap the writer can act on.