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 BREAKING CHANGE: /check-voice and /check-continuity are removed (superseded by /check-consistency).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>
64 lines
4.6 KiB
Markdown
64 lines
4.6 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
description: Consistency and believability pass — author voice, character voice, behavior matches words, in-world coherence
|
|
argument-hint: "[path, glob, or selection]"
|
|
allowed-tools: [Read, Glob, Grep]
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
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.
|