quality-loop

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Quality Loop

Iterative drafting system with backpressure from judge personas. Creates high-quality content through systematic source gathering, hook-first drafting, and multi-pass quality gates.

基于评审角色反向约束的迭代式写作系统。通过系统化的源内容收集、钩子先行写作法和多轮质量关卡，打造高质量内容。

When to Use This Skill

何时使用该技能

UNIVERSAL QUALITY GATES: This skill triggers for ALL public-facing content.

通用质量关卡： 该技能适用于所有对外发布的内容。

Trigger Points by Content Type

按内容类型划分的触发节点

Content Type	Trigger Point	Mode
Newsletter	After draft, before send	Full 5-judge
Deep Dive/Article	Before Webflow publish	Full 5-judge
Podcast blog	Before publish	Full 5-judge
LinkedIn post	After draft, before schedule	Lite 3-judge
X post	After draft, before schedule	Lite 3-judge
Instagram	After draft + visual	Lite 3-judge
Facebook	After draft, before schedule	Lite 3-judge

内容类型	触发节点	模式
通讯稿	草稿完成后，发送前	完整5评审模式
深度分析/文章	Webflow发布前	完整5评审模式
播客配套博文	发布前	完整5评审模式
LinkedIn帖子	草稿完成后，排期前	轻量3评审模式
X帖子	草稿完成后，排期前	轻量3评审模式
Instagram帖子	草稿+视觉内容完成后	轻量3评审模式
Facebook帖子	草稿完成后，排期前	轻量3评审模式

Full 5-Judge Mode

完整5评审模式

For long-form content (articles, newsletters, blog posts):

Human Detector (BLOCKING)
Accuracy Checker (BLOCKING)
OpenEd Voice (BLOCKING)
Reader Advocate (BLOCKING)
SEO Advisor (ADVISORY)

适用于长篇内容（文章、通讯稿、博文）：

Human Detector（阻塞型）
Accuracy Checker（阻塞型）
OpenEd Voice（阻塞型）
Reader Advocate（阻塞型）
SEO Advisor（建议型）

Lite 3-Judge Mode

轻量3评审模式

For social posts (faster, focused on voice and AI tells):

AI-Tell Judge (BLOCKING) - Hard blocks only
Voice Judge (BLOCKING) - Brand alignment
Platform Judge (ADVISORY) - Platform-specific optimization

See "Lite Quality Loop for Social" section below.

适用于社交平台帖子（更快捷，聚焦语气和AI特征）：

AI-Tell Judge（阻塞型）- 仅严重问题会直接驳回
Voice Judge（阻塞型）- 品牌调性对齐
Platform Judge（建议型）- 平台专属优化

详见下方「社交内容轻量质量循环」章节。

The Quality Loop Process

质量循环流程

SOURCES → HOOK → DRAFT → JUDGES → ITERATE
    ↑                         ↓
    └─────── (if blocked) ────┘

SOURCES → HOOK → DRAFT → JUDGES → ITERATE
    ↑                         ↓
    └─────── (if blocked) ────┘

Phase 1: Source Compilation

阶段1：源内容整合

Before drafting, gather all relevant sources into a single compiled file.

Source Search Order:

Proprietary content first - Search OpenEd podcast transcripts, newsletters, Slack
Content database - Grep
```
Content/
```
for related themes (not just exact terms)
External research - Web search for biography, facts, external validation

When no direct coverage exists: Expand the search to related themes. For example, if writing about "Daniel Greenberg":

Search for "democratic education"
Search for "self-directed"
Search for "trust children"
Search for related thinkers who discuss him (Peter Gray)

Source File Format:

markdown

undefined

写作前，将所有相关源内容整合到一个单独的文件中。

源内容搜索优先级：

自有内容优先 - 搜索OpenEd播客文稿、通讯稿、Slack内容
内容数据库 - 在
```
Content/
```
目录中搜索相关主题（不限于精确匹配）
外部调研 - 网页搜索传记、事实、外部验证信息

无直接相关内容时： 扩大搜索范围至相关主题。例如，若撰写关于「Daniel Greenberg」的内容：

搜索「民主教育」
搜索「自主导向」
搜索「信任儿童」
搜索讨论他的相关学者（如Peter Gray）

源内容文件格式：

markdown

undefined

Source: [Topic] Compiled

Biographical Facts

传记事实

Key dates, roles, locations
Verified from multiple sources

关键日期、职位、所在地
经多源验证

OpenEd Proprietary Content

OpenEd自有内容

From Podcast [Episode]:

"Direct quote..."

From Newsletter:

"Direct quote..."

来自播客[期数]：

"直接引用内容..."

来自通讯稿：

"直接引用内容..."

Key Themes

核心主题

Theme 1 with supporting evidence
Theme 2 with supporting evidence

主题1及支撑证据
主题2及支撑证据

SEO Notes

SEO备注

Primary keyword: [keyword] ([volume]/mo)
Secondary keywords: [list]

主关键词：[关键词]（[搜索量]/月）
次关键词：[列表]

Sources for Verification

验证来源

[URL 1]
[URL 2]

---

[URL 1]
[URL 2]

---

Phase 2: Hook First

阶段2：钩子先行

Never draft without user approval of the hook angle. Propose 4-6 hook options with clear differentiation.

Hook Proposal Format:

#	Hook	Opening Line	Why It Works
1	[Name]	"[First sentence]"	[Reasoning]
2	[Name]	"[First sentence]"	[Reasoning]
...	...	...	...

Good hooks:

Start with a specific moment, fact, or tension
Create curiosity without clickbait
Connect to something the reader cares about
Differentiate from what's already ranking

Bad hooks:

Generic "In today's world..." openings
Definition-first approaches ("X is defined as...")
Vague statements that could apply to anyone

After user selects a hook, proceed to drafting.

For series content: When writing multiple pieces on similar topics (e.g., profiles of thinkers), ensure each piece has a structurally different approach to avoid sameness. Examples:

Profile A: Personal drama narrative
Profile B: Scientific/research angle
Profile C: Evolution story (phases of career)
Profile D: Institutional critique
Profile E: Evidence/longevity angle

Track the structural approach used for each piece to ensure variety.

未获得用户对钩子角度的批准前，不得开始写作。提供4-6个差异化明确的钩子选项。

钩子提案格式：

#	钩子	开篇句	优势说明
1	[名称]	"[第一句话]"	[理由]
2	[名称]	"[第一句话]"	[理由]
...	...	...	...

优质钩子：

以特定场景、事实或矛盾点开篇
引发好奇心但不标题党
关联读者关心的内容
与已有的高排名内容形成差异

劣质钩子：

通用的「在当今世界...」开篇
先定义的方式（「X被定义为...」）
可适用于任何内容的模糊表述

用户选定钩子后，方可开始写作。

系列内容注意事项： 撰写同主题系列内容（如人物专访）时，需确保每篇内容结构不同，避免同质化。示例：

专访A：个人叙事风格
专访B：科研视角
专访C：职业发展历程
专访D：机构批判角度
专访E：实证/长期影响力视角

记录每篇内容采用的结构方式，确保多样性。

Phase 3: Draft

阶段3：写作草稿

Create the full draft following OpenEd style guidelines.

Draft Structure:

markdown

undefined

遵循OpenEd风格指南完成完整草稿。

草稿结构：

markdown

undefined

Draft v[N]: [Title]

Draft v[N]: [标题]

Date: [YYYY-MM-DD] Type: [New / Enhancement] Target: ~[X] words

日期： [YYYY-MM-DD] 类型： [全新内容 / 内容优化] 目标字数： ~[X]字

META ELEMENTS

元数据

Title Options:

[Option 1] ([char count])
[Option 2] ([char count]) ...

Meta Description (155 chars): [Description]

URL: /blog/[slug]

标题选项：

[选项1]（[字符数]）
[选项2]（[字符数]） ...

元描述（155字符）： [描述内容]

URL： /blog/[slug]

ARTICLE

文章正文

[Full article content]

[完整文章内容]

NOTES FOR JUDGES

评审备注

Word count: ~[X] words Internal links: [N] External links: [N] Target keywords: [list] OpenEd connection: [what makes this ours] Unique angle: [what differentiates from competitors]

---

字数： ~[X]字 内部链接数： [N] 外部链接数： [N] 目标关键词： [列表] OpenEd关联点： 内容专属特色 独特视角： 与竞品的差异点

---

Phase 4: Five Judges

阶段4：五大评审

Run every draft through all five judges in order. If ANY blocking judge fails, fix and re-run that judge before proceeding.

Full judge references: See

references/

folder for expanded criteria.

按顺序将所有草稿提交给五位评审。若任何阻塞型评审未通过，需修改后重新提交该评审，方可推进后续流程。

完整评审标准： 详见

references/

文件夹中的扩展准则。

Judge 1: Human Detector (BLOCKING)

评审1：Human Detector（阻塞型）

See:
references/human-detector.md

Scans for AI tells. Zero tolerance for:

Correlative constructions ("X isn't just Y - it's Z")
Dramatic contrast reveals ("Not X. Y.")
AI vocabulary (delve, comprehensive, crucial, landscape, journey, tapestry, myriad)
Staccato patterns ("No fluff. No filler. Just results.")
Triple Threat Syndrome (forced three-adjective stacks)

VERDICT: PASS only if zero AI tells found.

参考：
references/human-detector.md

扫描AI生成特征。零容忍以下内容：

关联句式（「X不只是Y——更是Z」）
戏剧性反转表述（「不是X，是Y」）
AI专属词汇（delve、comprehensive、crucial、landscape、journey、tapestry、myriad）
断句排比（「无冗余，无填充，只讲干货」）
三重形容词堆砌（强行使用三个形容词的组合）

评审结果： 仅当未发现任何AI特征时，判定为通过。

Judge 2: Accuracy Checker (BLOCKING)

评审2：Accuracy Checker（阻塞型）

See:
references/accuracy-checker.md

Verifies all factual claims against compiled sources:

Dates, names, quotes must match sources exactly
Statistics need citations
Timeline events in correct order
No unverifiable claims presented as fact

VERDICT: PASS only if all facts verified.

参考：
references/accuracy-checker.md

对照整合的源内容验证所有事实性声明：

日期、姓名、引用内容必须与源内容完全一致
统计数据需标注引用来源
时间线事件顺序正确
不得将未验证的声明作为事实呈现

评审结果： 仅当所有事实均验证通过时，判定为通过。

Judge 3: OpenEd Voice (BLOCKING)

评审3：OpenEd Voice（阻塞型）

See:
references/opened-voice.md

Core stance: Pro-child, not anti-school.

Describes, doesn't prescribe
Practical takeaways present
3+ internal links
Uses proprietary OpenEd content

VERDICT: PASS only if aligned with stance.

参考：
references/opened-voice.md

核心立场：支持儿童，而非反对学校。

客观描述，不强行说教
包含实用要点
至少3个内部链接
使用OpenEd自有内容

评审结果： 仅当内容符合核心立场时，判定为通过。

Judge 4: Reader Advocate (BLOCKING)

评审4：Reader Advocate（阻塞型）

See:
references/reader-advocate.md

Assesses engagement:

Hook creates curiosity (not definitions)
Logical section flow
Scannable structure
Appropriate length
Strong ending

VERDICT: PASS only if engaging throughout.

参考：
references/reader-advocate.md

评估内容吸引力：

钩子能引发好奇心（而非定义式开篇）
章节逻辑流畅
结构易于扫描阅读
篇幅合适
结尾有力

评审结果： 仅当全程保持吸引力时，判定为通过。

Judge 5: SEO Advisor (ADVISORY)

评审5：SEO Advisor（建议型）

See:
references/seo-advisor.md

Evaluates search optimization. Does not block.

Keyword in title, first 100 words, H2s
Meta elements optimized
5+ internal links, 2-3 external
Featured snippet opportunities

VERDICT: Advisory feedback only.

参考：
references/seo-advisor.md

评估搜索优化效果，不做阻塞性限制：

关键词出现在标题、前100字、二级标题中
元数据优化到位
至少5个内部链接、2-3个外部链接
具备获得精选摘要的潜力

评审结果： 仅提供建议性反馈。

Phase 5: Iterate

阶段5：迭代优化

If any blocking judge fails:

Make the specific fixes identified
Re-run ONLY the failed judge
If pass, continue to next judge
If fail again, make additional fixes and repeat

After all judges pass:

Update status in tracking document
Move to next piece or finalize for publication

若任何阻塞型评审未通过：

根据评审意见进行针对性修改
仅重新提交未通过的评审
若通过，继续推进下一个评审
若仍未通过，再次修改并重复流程

所有评审通过后：

在跟踪文档中更新状态
进入下一篇内容创作或最终发布环节

Folder Structure

文件夹结构

The folder structure depends on the project type. Organize sources and drafts logically.

Example for profile series:

project/
├── sources/
│   ├── person-a/compiled-sources.md
│   └── person-b/compiled-sources.md
├── drafts/
│   ├── person-a/v1.md
│   └── person-b/v1.md
└── TRACKING.md

Example for guide project:

project/
├── sources/compiled-sources.md
├── drafts/
│   ├── v1.md
│   ├── v2.md
│   └── final.md
└── TRACKING.md

文件夹结构取决于项目类型。需合理组织源内容和草稿文件。

人物专访系列示例：

project/
├── sources/
│   ├── person-a/compiled-sources.md
│   └── person-b/compiled-sources.md
├── drafts/
│   ├── person-a/v1.md
│   └── person-b/v1.md
└── TRACKING.md

指南项目示例：

project/
├── sources/compiled-sources.md
├── drafts/
│   ├── v1.md
│   ├── v2.md
│   └── final.md
└── TRACKING.md

Tracking Progress

进度跟踪

Maintain a tracking document showing status of each piece.

Tracking Table Format:

Item	Sources	Hook	Draft	HD	AC	OV	RA	SEO	Status
[Name]	DONE	[Hook name]	v1	PASS	PASS	PASS	PASS	PASS	COMPLETE
[Name]	DONE	pending	-	-	-	-	-	-	NEEDS HOOK

Legend:

HD = Human Detector
AC = Accuracy Checker
OV = OpenEd Voice
RA = Reader Advocate
SEO = SEO Advisor

维护跟踪文档，记录每篇内容的状态。

跟踪表格格式：

内容项	源内容	钩子	草稿	HD	AC	OV	RA	SEO	状态
[名称]	已完成	[钩子名称]	v1	通过	通过	通过	通过	通过	已完成
[名称]	已完成	待确认	-	-	-	-	-	-	待确认钩子

缩写说明：

HD = Human Detector
AC = Accuracy Checker
OV = OpenEd Voice
RA = Reader Advocate
SEO = SEO Advisor

Lite Quality Loop for Social

社交内容轻量质量循环

Faster quality checks for social posts. Run after draft, before scheduling.

针对社交平台帖子的快速质量检查，在草稿完成后、排期前执行。

Judge 1: AI-Tell Judge (BLOCKING)

评审1：AI-Tell Judge（阻塞型）

Judge 2: Voice Judge (BLOCKING)

评审2：Voice Judge（阻塞型）

Checks:

Sounds like OpenEd/brand account (not personal blog)
Aligns with Open Education values (parent empowerment, learner agency)
Appropriate tone for platform
No preachy or prescriptive language

VERDICT: PASS only if brand-aligned.

检查项：

符合OpenEd/品牌账号语气（而非个人博客风格）
符合开放教育价值观（赋能家长、学习者自主性）
符合平台调性
无说教或强制指令性语言

评审结果： 仅当内容符合品牌调性时，判定为通过。

Judge 3: Platform Judge (ADVISORY)

评审3：Platform Judge（建议型）

Platform-specific checks:

Platform	Checklist
LinkedIn	200-500 words, links in comments, 3-5 hashtags, hook in first 2 lines
X	70-100 chars optimal, 1-2 hashtags, retweet-worthy
Instagram	Visual-first, caption supports, 5-10 hashtags, first 150 chars hook
Facebook	No external links, no hashtags, ends with question/engagement prompt

VERDICT: Advisory feedback - does not block.

平台专属检查项：

平台	检查清单
LinkedIn	200-500字，链接放在评论区，3-5个话题标签，钩子在前2行
X	最优70-100字符，1-2个话题标签，适合转发
Instagram	视觉优先，配文辅助，5-10个话题标签，前150字符为钩子
Facebook	无外部链接，无话题标签，以问题或互动引导结尾

评审结果： 仅提供建议性反馈，不做阻塞性限制。

Lite Loop Process

轻量循环流程

DRAFT → AI-Tell Judge → Voice Judge → Platform Judge → SCHEDULE
             ↓ (fail)        ↓ (fail)
           FIX & RETRY     FIX & RETRY

草稿 → AI-Tell评审 → Voice评审 → Platform评审 → 排期
             ↓（未通过）        ↓（未通过）
           修改并重审     修改并重审

Quick Reference: AI Patterns to Avoid

快速参考：需避免的AI生成模式

Correlative Constructions (Most Common Tell)

关联句式（最常见特征）

"X isn't just Y - it's Z"
"X didn't Y. It Z."
"The goal isn't X - it's Y"
"It's not about X, it's about Y"

「X不只是Y——更是Z」
「X没有Y，而是Z」
「目标不是X——而是Y」
「关键不是X，而是Y」

Forbidden Words

禁用词汇

delve, comprehensive, crucial, vital, leverage, landscape, navigate, foster, facilitate, realm, paradigm, embark, journey, tapestry, myriad, multifaceted, seamless, cutting-edge

Forbidden Phrases

禁用句式

"The best part? ..." / "The secret? ..."
"What if I told you..." / "Here's the thing..."
"In today's fast-paced..." / "In the ever-evolving..."
"In conclusion" / "In summary"
"Let that sink in" / "Now more than ever"

「最棒的是？...」/「秘诀是？...」
「如果我告诉你...」/「重点是...」
「在快节奏的当今...」/「在不断演变的...」
「总结来说」/「综上所述」
「好好想想」/「当下尤为重要」

Dramatic Contrast Reveals (Priority #2)

戏剧性反转表述（优先级第2）

"Not on lessons. On fear."
"Not the curriculum. The structure."
"He didn't teach. He observed."
Any "Not X. Y." fragment pattern

「不是课程，是恐惧」
「不是大纲，是结构」
「他不教学，只观察」
任何「不是X，是Y」的短句模式

Forbidden Patterns

禁用格式

Staccato: "No fluff. No filler. Just results."
Triple adjectives: "Bold, beautiful, brilliant"
Negation structure: "No X. No Y. Just Z."

断句排比：「无冗余，无填充，只讲干货」
三重形容词：「大胆、美丽、出色」
否定结构：「没有X，没有Y，只有Z」

Formatting Rules

格式规则

Use hyphens with spaces - like this - not em dashes
No emojis in body content
No bold for emphasis in articles

使用带空格的连字符 - 像这样 - 而非长破折号
正文内容中不得使用表情符号
文章中不得使用粗体强调",