187863fa16
Two shifts in scope: - Remove the line-editor agent. The plugin no longer mutates the manuscript — all commands report findings to the conversation and leave revisions to the writer. - Consolidate the consistency surface. /check-voice and /check-continuity were narrow checks with overlapping concerns; they are replaced by /check-consistency, a single broader pass covering author voice, character voice, words-vs-actions alignment, and in-world believability. Plot-logic and sequencing concerns formerly in /check-continuity are now served by /generate-timeline's consistency-issues section. - Add /proofread for the mechanical layer that previously had no command equivalent — grammar, tense, punctuation, spelling, agreement, sentence-level clarity. Reports issues; does not edit. Command count unchanged at nine. The plugin is now agent-free and mutation-free; every command is read-only on the manuscript. BREAKING CHANGE: /check-voice and /check-continuity are removed (superseded by /check-consistency). The line-editor agent is removed (use /proofread for reporting; the writer makes the edits). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
4.6 KiB
4.6 KiB
description, argument-hint, allowed-tools
| description | argument-hint | allowed-tools | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consistency and believability pass — author voice, character voice, behavior matches words, in-world coherence | [path, glob, or selection] |
|
Read the material at $ARGUMENTS and assess whether the piece holds together: stable voices, characters who act like themselves, a world whose rules and inhabitants stay coherent. This is distinct from developmental review (which asks "is this a good story?") — this asks "is this a coherent story?" Report findings; do not edit.
What to assess
1. Author / narrator voice
Across the whole piece (and across scenes if they differ):
- Diction and register — does the narrator's word choice and formality stay stable? Where does it shift, and is the shift earned (POV change, time jump, emotional escalation) or accidental?
- Sentence rhythm and shape — does the narrator's characteristic cadence hold?
- Attitudinal stance — irony, warmth, distance, sympathy. Does the narrator's relationship to the material drift unintentionally?
- Tense and POV discipline — slips between close-third and distant-third, between past and present, between focal characters within a scene
2. Character voice
For each character with meaningful dialogue or interior:
- Distinctiveness — could a reader identify the speaker with tags removed? Test by sampling.
- Consistency — does the voice hold across scenes and emotional registers?
- Overlap — any two characters bleeding into each other?
- Growth versus drift — does change in the character show up in the voice deliberately, or does the voice just wander?
3. Words versus actions
For each character of consequence:
- Stated values vs. choices — does the character's behavior match what they say they believe, want, or fear? When the gap is deliberate (hypocrisy, self-deception), is it earning its space? When the gap looks accidental, flag it.
- Stated capabilities vs. demonstrated — does the supposedly-shrewd character get fooled too easily? Does the supposedly-physical character avoid physical solutions? Either is a flag.
- Relationships vs. behavior — do characters treat each other consistently with the relationship the text claims? Reported intimacy that doesn't show up in the prose, or coldness contradicted by warm gestures, are signals.
- Decisions under pressure — would this character, as established, actually make this choice here? Or is the plot pushing them?
4. In-world believability
- Rules of the world — physical, magical, technological, social, economic. Do the rules established earlier hold later? Where they're bent, is it earned (revelation, breakthrough, exception with a cost) or convenient?
- Cause and consequence — do actions have appropriate weight? Do injuries persist, do reputations propagate, do resources deplete, do secrets stay secret in proportion to who knows them?
- Setting plausibility — given the world, do crowds behave like crowds, institutions like institutions, frontier towns like frontier towns? Or is the setting a backdrop that responds only to the protagonist?
- Coincidence and contrivance — are improbable events seeded, or do they appear when the plot needs them? "And then…" beats that should be "but…" or "therefore…".
- Information economy — does each character act on what they reasonably know, not on what the reader knows? Does plot-required ignorance feel real, or do characters fail to notice the obvious so the story can proceed?
Output format
Per concern, when issues are found:
- Type (author voice / character voice / words-vs-actions / world coherence / believability)
- Location (chapter/scene with a short quoted excerpt)
- Issue — what conflicts with what, with both references
- Severity (minor — attentive readers might catch / moderate — careful readers will / major — breaks immersion)
- Why it matters — what trust the issue costs the reader
- Suggested fix — a concrete option, not just "address this"
Close with:
- What's holding together well — name the strongest threads of consistency so the writer doesn't sand them off in revision
- Priority fixes — three to five concrete suggestions in order of impact
- Patterns to watch — recurring slips the writer should look for in their own future drafts (e.g., "voice flattens in action scenes," "secondary characters share a register")
Be honest but not pedantic. Distinguish between unearned drift (a problem) and deliberate variation (a feature). When in doubt, note the ambiguity rather than the verdict.