book-review
Compare original and translation side by side
🇺🇸
Original
English🇨🇳
Translation
ChineseDraft a long-form book review from a user's Reader highlights — not just the target book,
but pulling in related highlights from their entire library to build original arguments.
The goal is a review that's more interesting than the book itself: summary + critique + original ideas,
where the original ideas come from connecting the book to everything else the user has read.
根据用户的Reader高亮内容撰写长篇书评——不仅针对目标书籍，
还会从用户的整个藏书库中提取相关高亮内容，构建原创观点。
我们的目标是写出比书籍本身更有趣的书评：包含摘要+评论+原创观点，
其中原创观点来自将本书与用户读过的其他所有内容建立关联。
Readwise Access
Readwise 访问权限
Check if Readwise MCP tools are available (e.g. ). If they are, use them throughout. If not, use the equivalent CLI commands instead (e.g. , , , ). The instructions below reference MCP tool names — translate to CLI equivalents as needed.
mcp__readwise__reader_list_documentsreadwisereadwise listreadwise read <id>readwise highlights <id>readwise search <query>检查Readwise MCP工具是否可用（例如 ）。如果可用，请全程使用；如果不可用，请改用等效的 CLI命令（例如 、、、）。以下说明中引用的是MCP工具名称——必要时请替换为对应的CLI命令。
mcp__readwise__reader_list_documentsreadwisereadwise listreadwise read <id>readwise highlights <id>readwise search <query>Setup
准备步骤
-
Check for persona file. Readin the current working directory if it exists. Use it to understand the user's interests, reading goals, and voice — this shapes the review's framing, what connections to prioritize, and what the user is likely to care about. If no persona file exists, proceed without it and ask the user about their purpose for reading the book if it's not obvious from their highlights.
reader_persona.md -
Parse the argument as a book title or search term.
/book-review Merchant Kings
/book-review 7 Powers-
检查人物设定文件。如果当前工作目录下存在，请读取该文件。利用它来了解用户的兴趣、阅读目标和写作风格——这会影响书评的框架、需要优先建立的关联以及用户可能关心的内容。如果没有人物设定文件，则直接进行下一步；如果从高亮内容中无法明确用户阅读本书的目的，请询问用户。
reader_persona.md -
解析请求参数，将其识别为书籍标题或搜索词。
/book-review Merchant Kings
/book-review 7 PowersPhase 1: Pull the Book's Highlights
第一阶段：提取目标书籍的高亮内容
1.1 Find the book
1.1 查找书籍
Search Reader for the target book:
mcp__readwise__reader_search_documents(query="[book title]", category_in=["epub", "pdf"])If no results, broaden to all categories. If multiple matches, list them and ask the user to pick.
在Reader中搜索目标书籍：
mcp__readwise__reader_search_documents(query="[book title]", category_in=["epub", "pdf"])如果没有结果，扩大搜索范围至所有分类。如果有多个匹配结果，请列出它们并让用户选择。
1.2 Get highlights
1.2 获取高亮内容
mcp__readwise__reader_get_document_highlights(document_id="[book_id]")Read every highlight. Count them. If fewer than 10, warn the user — may not be enough material
for a substantive review. Ask whether to proceed or wait.
mcp__readwise__reader_get_document_highlights(document_id="[book_id]")读取所有高亮内容并统计数量。如果高亮内容少于10条，请提醒用户——可能没有足够的素材来撰写有深度的书评。询问用户是否继续。
1.3 Get the full document details
1.3 获取完整文档详情
mcp__readwise__reader_get_document_details(document_id="[book_id]")Pull title, author, summary, cover image. You'll need these for the final output.
mcp__readwise__reader_get_document_details(document_id="[book_id]")提取书籍标题、作者、摘要和封面图片。这些内容会用于最终输出。
Phase 2: Extract Claims
第二阶段：提取核心观点
Process every highlight into an atomic claim. This is the step that turns
"I highlighted this paragraph" into structured, searchable research material.
For each highlight:
- Read the highlighted text and any user note/annotation
- Write a single present-tense declarative claim (under 10 words when possible)
- If the user left a note, weight the claim toward what the note focused on
Claim quality standards:
Good claims are specific, searchable facts or assertions:
- "chimney sweeps died of scrotal cancer from coal soot"
- "Ottoman harem trained slave girls as elite bureaucrats"
- "monsoon winds enabled global maritime trade"
Bad claims are vague or generic:
- "coal mining had health consequences"
- "the author discusses Ottoman succession"
- "interesting point about slavery"
After processing all highlights, review the full list. Reject and rewrite any that are:
- Generic/boring ("author discusses X")
- Duplicative (two claims saying the same thing differently — consolidate)
- Vague (doesn't stand alone without reading the highlight)
Store the claims as a working list grouped by theme. This becomes your outline.
将每一条高亮内容处理为独立的核心观点。这一步是将
“我高亮了这段文字”转化为结构化、可搜索的研究素材。
对于每条高亮内容：
- 阅读高亮文本以及用户添加的笔记/批注
- 用一个现在时态的陈述句总结核心观点（尽可能控制在10词以内）
- 如果用户留下了笔记，优先围绕笔记的重点提炼观点
核心观点质量标准：
优质的观点是具体、可搜索的事实或断言：
- "扫烟囱工人因煤烟灰患阴囊癌死亡"
- "奥斯曼帝国后宫将女奴训练为精英官僚"
- "季风推动全球海上贸易发展"
劣质的观点模糊或泛泛而谈：
- "采煤对健康有影响"
- "作者讨论了奥斯曼帝国的继承问题"
- "关于奴隶制的有趣观点"
处理完所有高亮内容后，回顾整个观点列表。剔除并重写以下类型的观点：
- 泛泛而谈的内容（如“作者讨论了X”）
- 重复内容（两个观点表达相同含义——合并为一个）
- 模糊内容（脱离高亮文本后无法独立理解）
将观点按主题分组保存为工作列表。这将作为你的书评大纲。
Phase 3: Search the Library for Related Material
第三阶段：在藏书库中搜索相关素材
This is what makes the review more than a summary. For each major theme cluster
from Phase 2, search the user's full Reader library for related content.
这一步是让书评超越简单摘要的关键。针对第二阶段中的每个主要主题组，
在用户的整个Reader藏书库中搜索相关内容。
3.1 Theme-based searches
3.1 基于主题的搜索
For each theme cluster (aim for 3-6 themes):
mcp__readwise__reader_search_documents(query="[theme keywords]", limit=20)Pull highlights from the top hits:
mcp__readwise__reader_get_document_highlights(document_id="[related_doc_id]")You're looking for:
- Supporting evidence from other sources that strengthens a claim
- Contradictions that complicate the book's argument
- Parallel examples from different domains (the user read about X in biology, the book says the same about economics)
- The user's own prior thinking visible in their notes/annotations on related docs
针对每个主题组（建议3-6个主题）：
mcp__readwise__reader_search_documents(query="[theme keywords]", limit=20)从搜索结果的顶部条目提取高亮内容：
mcp__readwise__reader_get_document_highlights(document_id="[related_doc_id]")你需要寻找：
- 支持性证据：来自其他来源、能强化现有观点的内容
- 矛盾观点：能使本书论点更复杂或存在争议的内容
- 平行案例：来自不同领域的相似例子（例如用户在生物学书籍中读到过X，而本书在经济学领域也提到了相同的观点）
- 用户的过往思考：在相关文档的笔记/批注中体现的用户原有想法
3.2 Author search
3.2 作者搜索
mcp__readwise__reader_search_documents(query="[book author name]")Check if the user has read other work by the same author. Prior context enriches the review.
mcp__readwise__reader_search_documents(query="[book author name]")检查用户是否读过该作者的其他作品。过往的阅读背景能丰富书评的内容。
3.3 Extract related claims
3.3 提取相关观点
For each relevant highlight from a related document, extract a claim the same way
as Phase 2. Tag it with its source document so you can cite it properly.
Result: You should now have:
- The book's claims (Phase 2), grouped by theme
- Related claims from the broader library (Phase 3), mapped to those same themes
- A sense of where the user's reading supports, complicates, or extends the book
针对来自相关文档的每条有用高亮内容，按照第二阶段的方法提取核心观点。为观点标记来源文档，以便后续正确引用。
最终结果：你将得到：
- 本书的核心观点（第二阶段），按主题分组
- 来自藏书库的相关观点（第三阶段），与对应主题关联
- 了解用户的阅读内容对本书观点的支持、补充或挑战之处
Phase 4: Supplement with Web Research
第四阶段：补充网络研究
Fill gaps that the user's library doesn't cover. Keep this focused — the library
research is the core, web research is supplemental.
- Search for academic sources, author interviews, other reviews
- Look for Substack writers or bloggers covering the same topic
填补用户藏书库未覆盖的内容空白。注意保持聚焦——藏书库研究是核心，网络研究仅作为补充。
- 搜索学术来源、作者访谈和其他书评
- 寻找Substack作者或博客作者对同一主题的讨论
Phase 5: Write the Review
第五阶段：撰写书评
A great book review has three elements (per the ACX Book Review Contest wisdom):
- Summary — Show what the book is about and why it's interesting. Without this, readers are confused.
- Critique — An actual quality and agreement judgment. Without this, it isn't a review.
- Original ideas — Connect the book to broader patterns from the user's reading. Without this, nobody is particularly impressed.
The original ideas come from Phase 3 — the related highlights from the user's library.
This is the whole point of the skill.
一篇优秀的书评包含三个要素（参考ACX书评大赛的经验）：
- 摘要——说明本书的内容及其有趣之处。缺少这部分，读者会感到困惑。
- 评论——对书籍质量和观点的真实评判。缺少这部分，就不能称之为书评。
- 原创观点——将本书与用户阅读历史中的更广泛模式相关联。缺少这部分，无法给人留下深刻印象。
原创观点来自第三阶段——用户藏书库中的相关高亮内容。这正是本技能的核心价值。
Structure
结构
[Opening: What the book is and why it matters — a specific fact or scene, not a vague hook.
Leave a %% TODO %% for the user to add how they found the book and why they read it
if context wasn't already in the document note.][开头：介绍本书内容及其重要性——用具体的事实或场景，而非模糊的引子。
如果文档笔记中没有相关背景，请留下`%% TODO %%`，让用户补充他们如何发现本书以及阅读本书的原因。][Thematic section 1 — informative header, not clever]
[主题章节1——使用信息性标题，而非花哨的标题]
[Summarize the book's argument on this theme. Use block quotes from the book's highlights.
Then EXPAND: bring in related material from the user's other reading. This is where the
review becomes more than a summary — it's synthesis.]
"Block quote from the book" — Author, Book Title
[The user also highlighted something in [Related Document] that complicates/supports this:
weave it in naturally. Cite the source with a URL link to the original source, NOT the Reader link.]
[总结本书在该主题上的论点。引用本书高亮内容中的块引用。
然后展开：融入用户其他阅读中的相关素材。这一步是让书评超越简单摘要的关键——实现内容整合。]
"本书中的块引用内容" —— 作者，《书名》
[用户还在《相关文档》中高亮了某段内容，对该观点进行了补充或挑战：
自然地将其融入内容中。引用来源时使用原始内容的URL链接，而非Reader链接。]
[Thematic section 2]
[主题章节2]
[Same pattern: book's argument → user's related reading → synthesis.
Each section should advance an argument, not just list facts.]
[遵循相同模式：本书论点→用户相关阅读内容→内容整合。
每个章节都应推进一个论点，而非简单罗列事实。]
[Thematic section 3+]
[主题章节3及更多]
[Keep going. Organize by theme, not by chapter. Every section should have at least
one connection to something outside the book itself.]
[继续扩展。按主题组织内容，而非按章节。每个章节至少包含一个与本书之外内容的关联。]
What the Book Gets Wrong (or Misses)
本书的不足（或遗漏之处）
[Honest critique. Use the user's other reading as evidence where it contradicts
or complicates the book. This is where the related-document research pays off most.]
[坦诚的评论。当用户的其他阅读内容与本书观点矛盾或补充时，将其作为证据。这正是相关文档研究的最大价值所在。]
Further Reading
延伸阅读
- Description with embedded link for sources worth exploring that were NOT linked above but are related to the core themes of this review.
undefined- 对与本书核心主题相关但未在上方链接的来源进行描述，并添加嵌入式链接。
undefinedVoice Rules
写作风格规则
You are drafting FOR the user, not impersonating them:
- Don't manufacture emotion — No "I was struck by", "I was fascinated to learn." State facts. The user adds reactions.
- Don't manufacture personal details — No "this reminded me of my childhood." If the user wrote something in a highlight note, reference it. Otherwise, leave a .
%% TODO %% - Leave explicit gaps — Use for personal hooks. These signal where the user needs to fill in their own experience.
%% TODO: [what the user should add] %% - Honest about gaps — "I don't know" beats hedging. If unsure, say so or leave a TODO.
- First person — You're writing a draft the user will edit, not a report about them.
- If a persona file exists, use it to inform which connections to prioritize and what framing the user would find natural — but still leave TODOs for personal details you're not sure about.
你是在为用户撰写草稿，而非模仿用户的风格：
- 不要编造情绪——避免使用“我被打动了”“我饶有兴趣地了解到”这类表达。只陈述事实，由用户添加个人反应。
- 不要编造个人细节——避免使用“这让我想起了我的童年”这类表达。如果用户在高亮笔记中写了相关内容，可以引用；否则，请留下。
%% TODO %% - 明确标注空白内容——使用标记需要用户添加个人引子的地方。这些标记提示用户需要补充自己的经历。
%% TODO: [用户需要补充的内容] %% - 坦诚面对信息空白——“我不知道”比含糊其辞更好。如果不确定，请直接说明或留下TODO标记。
- 使用第一人称——你撰写的是供用户编辑的草稿，而非关于用户的报告。
- 如果存在人物设定文件，请根据它来确定需要优先建立的关联以及用户习惯的框架——但对于不确定的个人细节，仍需留下TODO标记。
Length
篇幅
Err long. 2,000-10,000 words for a substantial book. The ACX contest data shows longer reviews
with genuine insight outperform shorter ones. Depth > brevity, as long as every paragraph earns
its place. If the user's highlights are sparse (10-20), aim for 1,000-2,000 instead.
宁长勿短。对于内容丰富的书籍，建议2000-10000字。ACX大赛的数据显示，有深度见解的长篇书评比短篇书评表现更好。只要每个段落都有存在的价值，深度比 brevity更重要。如果用户的高亮内容较少（10-20条），则目标篇幅为1000-2000字。
Links and Sources
链接与来源
- Bookshop.org link for the target book on first mention
- Real URLs only — never leave placeholder links like or
(url)(link) - When citing a related document from the user's Reader library, link to the original source URL (from document details), not the Reader URL
- Bias toward web sources that can be read in full without a paywall, like Substack or open access PDFs. Do not source from books someone would need to purchase to read.
- 首次提及目标书籍时，添加Bookshop.org链接
- 仅使用真实URL——不要留下或
(url)这类占位符链接(link) - 引用用户Reader藏书库中的相关文档时，链接到原始内容的URL（来自文档详情），而非Reader链接
- 优先选择无需付费即可全文阅读的网络来源，如Substack或开放获取的PDF文档。不要引用需要购买才能阅读的书籍来源。
Phase 6: Quality Gate
第六阶段：质量审核
Separate pass. Do not skip. Do not combine with Phase 5.
Re-read the full draft and fix every instance of:
单独进行此步骤，不要跳过，不要与第五阶段合并。
重新阅读完整草稿，修正以下所有问题：
Banned Vocabulary
禁用词汇
Never use these. Find concrete alternatives.
| Banned | Use instead |
|---|---|
| Additionally | "Also" or restructure |
| Crucial / Pivotal / Key (adj) | Be specific about why it matters |
| Delve / Delve into | "examine", "look at", or just start |
| Enhance / Fostering | Be specific about what improved |
| Landscape (abstract) | Name the actual domain |
| Tapestry (figurative) | Name the actual pattern |
| Underscore / Highlight (verb) | State the point directly |
| Showcase | "shows", "demonstrates" |
| Vibrant / Rich (figurative) | Be specific |
| Testament / Enduring | Just state the fact |
| Groundbreaking / Renowned | Be specific about what's notable |
| Garner | "get", "earn", "attract" |
| Intricate / Intricacies | "complex" or describe the actual complexity |
| Interplay | "relationship", "tension", or describe it |
| Serves as / Stands as | Use "is" |
| Nestled / In the heart of | Just name the location |
绝对不要使用这些词汇，请找到具体的替代表达。
| 禁用词汇 | 替代表达 |
|---|---|
| Additionally | 使用“Also”或调整句式 |
| Crucial / Pivotal / Key (形容词) | 具体说明其重要性的原因 |
| Delve / Delve into | 使用“examine”“look at”或直接切入主题 |
| Enhance / Fostering | 具体说明改进的内容 |
| Landscape (抽象用法) | 明确指出实际领域 |
| Tapestry (比喻用法) | 明确指出实际模式 |
| Underscore / Highlight (动词) | 直接陈述观点 |
| Showcase | 使用“shows”“demonstrates” |
| Vibrant / Rich (比喻用法) | 具体描述 |
| Testament / Enduring | 直接陈述事实 |
| Groundbreaking / Renowned | 具体说明其值得关注的点 |
| Garner | 使用“get”“earn”“attract” |
| Intricate / Intricacies | 使用“complex”或描述实际的复杂性 |
| Interplay | 使用“relationship”“tension”或具体描述 |
| Serves as / Stands as | 使用“is” |
| Nestled / In the heart of | 直接命名地点 |
Banned Structures
禁用句式
| Pattern | Fix |
|---|---|
| "Not just X, it's Y" / "Not A, but B" | State Y directly |
| Rule of three ("innovation, inspiration, and insights") | Use the number of items the content needs |
| "-ing" analysis ("highlighting the importance of...") | State the importance directly |
| "From X to Y" (false ranges) | List the actual items |
| Synonym cycling (protagonist/hero/central figure) | Pick one term, reuse it |
| "Despite challenges, the future looks bright" | State the actual situation |
| "Exciting times lie ahead" | End with a specific fact |
| "X wasn't Y. It was Z." (dramatic reveal) | Collapse to single positive statement |
| "The detail that stopped me in my tracks" | Start with the fact |
| "genuinely revolutionary" | Use a specific descriptor |
| Any melodramatic one-liner meant to sound profound | Delete it |
| "I'd forgotten I knew" | Delete. Never frame knowledge as rediscovered. |
| 句式模式 | 修正方法 |
|---|---|
| "Not just X, it's Y" / "Not A, but B" | 直接陈述Y的内容 |
| 排比句式（如“innovation, inspiration, and insights”） | 根据实际内容需要的数量列出条目 |
| "-ing”式分析（如“highlighting the importance of...”） | 直接陈述重要性 |
| "From X to Y”（虚假范围） | 列出实际的条目 |
| 同义词替换（如protagonist/hero/central figure） | 选择一个术语并重复使用 |
| "Despite challenges, the future looks bright" | 陈述实际情况 |
| "Exciting times lie ahead" | 以具体事实结尾 |
| "X wasn't Y. It was Z.”（戏剧性揭示） | 合并为一个正面陈述 |
| "The detail that stopped me in my tracks" | 直接从事实开始 |
| "genuinely revolutionary" | 使用具体的描述词 |
| 任何故作深刻的戏剧性单行句 | 删除该内容 |
| "I'd forgotten I knew" | 删除。永远不要将知识描述为重新发现的 |
Checklist
检查清单
- 6a. Grep the draft for every banned word/pattern above. Fix every match.
- 6b. Check links — every source has a real URL. No placeholders.
- 6c. Check em dash density — max 2-3 per section. Convert excess to commas, colons, periods.
- 6d. Check word repetition — any word appearing 3+ times in a paragraph. Vary or reduce.
- 6e. Read the opening paragraph. Does it sound like a person or like an AI summarizing a book? If the latter, rewrite.
- 6f. Verify every section connects to material beyond the book itself. If a section is pure summary with no synthesis, add related-library connections or cut it.
- 6a. 检查草稿中是否存在上述所有禁用词汇/句式。修正所有匹配项。
- 6b. 检查链接——每个来源都有真实的URL，没有占位符。
- 6c. 检查破折号密度——每个章节最多使用2-3个破折号。将多余的破折号转换为逗号、冒号或句号。
- 6d. 检查词汇重复——任何词汇在一个段落中出现3次以上。替换或减少使用。
- 6e. 阅读开头段落——读起来像真人撰写还是AI总结书籍？如果是后者，请重写。
- 6f. 验证每个章节是否与本书之外的内容相关联。如果某个章节纯粹是摘要而没有内容整合，请添加藏书库中的相关内容或删除该章节。
Phase 7: Publish to Reader
第七阶段：发布到Reader
Create the review as a new document in Reader:
mcp__readwise__reader_create_document(
url="https://reader-review.internal/[slug]-[ISO-timestamp]",
title="[book title] — Review Draft",
author="Ghostreader",
category="article",
summary="Review draft based on [N] highlights from [Book Title] and [M] related documents",
html="[converted HTML of the review]",
notes="DRAFT for editing. Based on highlights from: [list source document titles]"
)Return the document URL to the user.
在Reader中创建一个新文档来保存书评：
mcp__readwise__reader_create_document(
url="https://reader-review.internal/[slug]-[ISO-timestamp]",
title="[book title] — Review Draft",
author="Ghostreader",
category="article",
summary="Review draft based on [N] highlights from [Book Title] and [M] related documents",
html="[converted HTML of the review]",
notes="DRAFT for editing. Based on highlights from: [list source document titles]"
)将文档URL返回给用户。
What Makes This Different from a Summary
与普通摘要的区别
The whole point of Phase 3 (library search) is that the review should contain ideas
the author of the book never had. The user's reading history is a unique lens:
- They read a book about Roman logistics AND a book about supply chain management → the review connects them in a way neither book does alone
- They highlighted a contradicting claim in a different source → the review challenges the book with evidence the user already found compelling
- They left a note on a highlight in an unrelated article that turns out to be relevant → the review surfaces a connection the user may not have consciously made
This is how you get "original ideas" — the third element that separates a competent
review from an impressive one. The user's library IS the original thinking.
第三阶段（藏书库搜索）的核心价值在于，书评应包含本书作者从未提出过的观点。用户的阅读历史是独特的视角：
- 用户读过关于罗马后勤的书籍和关于供应链管理的书籍 → 书评将两者关联，这是单独阅读任何一本书都无法实现的
- 用户在其他来源中高亮了一个矛盾的观点 → 书评用用户已经认可的证据挑战本书的观点
- 用户在一篇无关文章的高亮内容中留下了笔记，后来发现与本书相关 → 书评呈现用户可能未意识到的关联
这正是获得“原创观点”的方式——这是区分合格书评与优秀书评的第三个要素。用户的藏书库就是原创思考的来源。
Error Handling
错误处理
- Book not found in Reader: Report search terms tried, ask for correct title or document ID.
- Fewer than 10 highlights: Warn — may not be enough. Ask whether to proceed.
- No related documents found: Proceed with book-only review but warn that it'll be more summary-heavy. Lean harder on web research.
- Reader create fails: The draft text is already generated — output it as markdown so the user can save it manually.
- Any unexpected failure: Say what failed, what's already done, where partial output is.
- Reader中未找到书籍：报告尝试过的搜索词，请求用户提供正确的书名或文档ID。
- 高亮内容少于10条：发出警告——素材可能不足。询问用户是否继续。
- 未找到相关文档：继续撰写仅基于本书的书评，但提醒用户书评会更偏向摘要。加大网络研究的力度。
- 创建Reader文档失败：草稿已经生成——将其以markdown格式输出，让用户手动保存。
- 任何意外故障：说明故障内容、已完成的工作以及部分输出的位置。