Technical Copywriting Review

Reviews teaser/promotion text that accompanies technical blog post shares. 3-phase sequential review: Type Classification → Structure Review → Voice & Authenticity.

The Iron Law

• Perform all 3 Review Areas in order. Do not skip any Area.
• After completing each Area, present review results to the user and get approval.
• All principles are recommendations. Apply flexibly based on context.

Non-Negotiable Rules

Rule	Description
Sequential Execution	Type → Structure → Voice order
Per-Area Approval	User confirmation after each Area
Before/After	All improvement suggestions in Before/After format
Cite Principle	Each suggestion must cite its principle ID (CP1~CP15)

Review Areas

digraph review_flow {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];

    "Input Text" -> "Area 1:\nType Classification";
    "Area 1:\nType Classification" -> "Area 2:\nStructure Review";
    "Area 2:\nStructure Review" -> "Area 3:\nVoice & Authenticity";
    "Area 3:\nVoice & Authenticity" -> "Review Complete";
}

Area 1: Type Classification

• Reviews: Teaser type classification, required elements verification per type, platform constraint compliance
• Enter when: Review target text exists
• Skip when: User already specified type and requested no type verification
• Reference:

  references/type.md

Area 2: Structure Review

• Reviews: Type-specific opening, value delivery mode, closing pattern, proportion balance
• Enter when: Area 1 completed
• Skip when: Only voice-level review requested
• Reference:

  references/structure.md

Area 3: Voice & Authenticity Review

• Reviews: Developer authenticity, anti-marketing-speak, platform tone, reader connection, Korean naturalness
• Enter when: Area 2 completed (or Area 1 if Area 2 skipped)
• Skip when: Only structure-level review requested
• Reference:

  references/voice.md

Review Output Format

Each Area's review results use this format:

## Area N: {Area Name} Review

### Summary
- 총 {N}건의 개선 제안
- 심각도: Critical {N} / Suggestion {N}

### Findings

#### Finding 1: {제목}
- **원칙**: {원칙 ID} - {원칙 이름}
- **심각도**: Critical / Suggestion
- **Before**:
  > {원본 텍스트}
- **After**:
  > {개선된 텍스트}
- **근거**: {왜 이 변경이 필요한지}

Severity criteria:

• Critical: Type mismatch (e.g. Learning Journey structure applied to Announcement), missing required elements for the identified type, platform constraint violations
• Suggestion: Tone adjustment, proportion optimization, minor structural improvement

Area Completion Protocol

After completing each Area:

1. Present review results in Review Output Format
2. Ask user: "Area N 리뷰 결과를 확인해주세요. 다음 Area로 진행할까요?"
3. Proceed to next Area after user approval

Review Completion

After all 3 Areas are complete:

1. Present overall review summary (finding count per Area, Critical/Suggestion ratio)
2. Priority-ordered improvement list (Critical → Suggestion)
3. Generate improved full teaser text upon user request

Language

• Review results are written in Korean
• Principle IDs remain in English codes (CP1, CP2, etc.)
• Before/After examples maintain the original language