Back to Details

cw-final-pass

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Final Pass

最终审核

Purpose

用途

The final quality check before publishing. This is the last look before it ships.
Read 
../../references/context-contract.md
and load the relevant project, publication, platform, source, and destination requirements before judging readiness.
Do not interpret a passing verdict as permission to publish, send, schedule, or move files.
发布前的最终质量检查，是内容上线前的最后一道把关。
在判断就绪状态前，请先阅读 
../../references/context-contract.md
，并加载相关的项目、发布渠道、平台、来源及目标要求。
请勿将通过判定视为发布、发送、定时推送或移动文件的许可。

What to Check

检查项

Content Quality

内容质量

Questions to consider (weight by piece type):
  • Does the piece deliver on its promise?
  • Is the thesis clear and supported?
  • Do the sections earn their place?
  • Are stakes visible?
  • Is there a clear transformation or takeaway?
  • Evidence check — every major claim backed by experience, named source, or specific example? Any floating assertions?
  • Provenance check — citations, links, quotes, and attribution still support the claims they are attached to? Any model-added assumption presented as sourced fact?
  • 20-second pitch — can the piece be explained in 20 seconds, and does that explanation match the intro's stated thesis/promise?
需考虑的问题（根据内容类型调整权重）：
  • 内容是否兑现了它的承诺？
  • 论点是否清晰且有支撑？
  • 各个章节是否有存在的必要？
  • 是否明确体现了内容的核心价值与重要性？
  • 是否有清晰的认知转变或核心收获？
  • 证据检查 — 每个核心主张是否都有经验、明确来源或具体案例支撑？是否存在无依据的断言？
  • 来源检查 — 引用、链接、引述和署名是否仍然支撑其对应的主张？是否存在将模型生成的假设当作有来源的事实呈现的情况？
  • 20秒推介测试 — 这篇内容能否在20秒内讲清楚？且讲解内容是否与引言中陈述的论点/承诺一致？

Surface Polish

表面润色

  • Typos and spelling
  • Punctuation consistency
  • Formatting consistency
  • Awkward phrasing
  • 错别字与拼写错误
  • 标点符号一致性
  • 格式一致性
  • 生硬拗口的表述

Speed-Read Test

速读测试

Read only:
  • Headline
  • First two sentences
  • Subheads
  • First sentence of each section
  • Conclusion
Does it still make sense and compel? A skim-reader should:
  • Feel the problem quickly
  • Want the answer
  • Understand what they'll gain
仅阅读以下内容：
  • 标题
  • 开头前两句话
  • 小标题
  • 每个章节的第一句话
  • 结论
这样读下来内容是否通顺且有吸引力？速读的读者应该能够：
  • 快速感知到问题
  • 想要得到答案
  • 清楚自己能获得什么

The 20-Second Pitch Test

20秒推介测试

Generate a 20-second pitch of the piece (what it actually argues, end to end). Pull the thesis/promise from the intro as stated. Compare them.
If they don't match, the intro drifted — usually because the piece evolved during revision and the opening didn't catch up. Flag it before publishing. The fix is almost always rewriting the intro to match where the piece actually lands.
为这篇内容生成一个20秒的推介（即它从头到尾实际论证的内容），再从引言中提取原文陈述的论点/承诺，将两者进行对比。
如果两者不匹配，说明引言偏离了内容——通常是因为内容在修改过程中发生了变化，而开头没有同步更新。发布前请标记此问题。解决方法几乎都是重写引言，使其与内容最终呈现的核心一致。

Output

输出格式

Assessment Options

评估选项

Full verdict (default):
undefined
完整判定（默认）：
undefined

✅ Ready

✅ Ready

What's working:
  • [Strength #1]
  • [Strength #2]
  • [Strength #3]
Ship it.

or
What's working:
  • [Strength #1]
  • [Strength #2]
  • [Strength #3]
Ship it.

或

⚠️ Almost Ready

⚠️ Almost Ready

Minor issues to consider:
  1. [Issue] — [Quick explanation]
These won't break the piece, but fixing them would help. Fix them, or ship as-is?

or
Minor issues to consider:
  1. [Issue] — [Quick explanation]
These won't break the piece, but fixing them would help. Fix them, or ship as-is?

或

❌ Needs More Work

❌ Needs More Work

Issues that should be addressed:
  1. [Issue #1] — [Why it matters]
  2. [Issue #2] — [Why it matters]
Want to fix these together?

**Quick check (for fast turnaround):**
Issues that should be addressed:
  1. [Issue #1] — [Why it matters]
  2. [Issue #2] — [Why it matters]
Want to fix these together?

**快速检查（适用于快速交付场景）：**

Quick Final Check

Quick Final Check

✅ Content delivers on promise ✅ Surface polish clean ⚠️ One note: [minor issue]
Ready to ship.
undefined
✅ Content delivers on promise ✅ Surface polish clean ⚠️ One note: [minor issue]
Ready to ship.
undefined

Your Judgment

你的判断

Pass/fail is a recommendation, not a gate. The writer decides when to publish. Your job is to surface anything they might have missed and give them confidence (or appropriate caution).
  • Some pieces are ready with minor imperfections
  • Some writers want perfection; others want "good enough"
  • Context matters: blog post vs. flagship article vs. quick take
通过/不通过只是建议，而非硬性门禁。 发布时机由作者决定。你的工作是指出他们可能遗漏的任何问题，给予他们信心（或适当的提醒）。
  • 有些内容即使有小瑕疵也可以发布
  • 有些作者追求完美，有些则满足于“足够好”
  • 场景很重要：博客文章、旗舰深度文、快评的标准各不相同

Collaborative Fixing

协作修改

If there are issues:
  1. List them clearly
  2. Offer: "Want to fix these together?"
  3. Work through collaboratively
  4. Re-check if requested
Don't force multiple passes. One thorough check is usually enough.
如果存在问题：
  1. 清晰列出问题
  2. 主动询问：「需要一起修改这些问题吗？」
  3. 协作完成修改
  4. 如有要求，重新检查
不要强制进行多轮审核。 通常一次全面检查就足够了。

For Agents

针对Agent的说明

When invoked programmatically:
  • Accept draft as input
  • Return pass/fail assessment with reasoning
  • Include list of any issues found
  • Can be composed with other quality checks (ai-check, voice-check)
当被程序化调用时：
  • 接受草稿作为输入
  • 返回带理由的通过/不通过评估结果
  • 附上所有发现的问题列表
  • 可与其他质量检查（ai-check、voice-check）组合使用

Lessons

经验总结

[Skill-specific lessons will be added here as they're captured]
[后续将在此处补充该技能相关的具体经验]