version: "1.0.1" name: bms:proofread-blog description: Proofreads a blog post for clarity, balance, and general quality. Use when asked to proofread, review, or critique a blog post or article.

Proofread Blog Post

Review a blog post to identify areas where clarity can be improved, assess whether the piece is balanced, and suggest general improvements.

Instructions

Read the full content before beginning any analysis. Identify the audience, purpose, and tone the author is going for.

1. Assess clarity

Look for areas where the writing could be clearer. Consider:

• Ambiguous sentences -- flag any sentence where the meaning is not immediately obvious on first read.
• Jargon without context -- note technical terms or acronyms that are used without explanation, especially if the target audience may not know them.
• Long or convoluted sentences -- identify sentences that try to do too much and would benefit from being split.
• Weak transitions -- flag places where the jump between paragraphs or sections feels abrupt.
• Buried key points -- note when an important idea is hidden in the middle of a dense paragraph rather than being stated up front.

2. Assess balance

Even personal blog posts benefit from balanced reasoning. Evaluate:

• One-sided arguments -- flag claims that only present one perspective without acknowledging trade-offs or counterpoints.
• Unsupported assertions -- note strong statements that lack evidence, examples, or reasoning to back them up.
• Tone consistency -- check whether the tone shifts unexpectedly (e.g. from measured analysis to a rant) in a way that undermines credibility.
• Fair representation -- if the post discusses tools, technologies, or approaches, check whether alternatives are dismissed without fair consideration.

3. Identify general areas for improvement

Look at the post holistically:

• Structure -- does the post have a clear introduction, body, and conclusion? Does the order of sections make logical sense?
• Opening -- does the introduction set up what the reader will get from the post? Would a reader continue past the first paragraph?
• Conclusion -- does the post end with a clear takeaway, or does it just stop?
• Repetition -- flag points that are made more than once without adding new information.
• Length -- note if any section feels padded or if the overall post is longer than it needs to be for the point being made.
• Grammar and spelling -- flag any errors, but do not make this the focus of the review.
• Title -- does the title accurately reflect the content? Would it make someone want to read the post?

4. Present the review

Structure the feedback as follows:

• Summary -- a brief overall impression of the post (2-3 sentences).
• Clarity -- specific passages or sentences that could be clearer, with an explanation of why and a suggestion for how.
• Balance -- any areas where the reasoning could be more even-handed, with concrete suggestions.
• General improvements -- structural, stylistic, or content suggestions.
• Strengths -- note what the post does well. Honest feedback includes acknowledging what works.

For each piece of feedback, reference the specific section or quote the relevant text so the author can find it easily.

Guidelines

• Be direct and specific. Vague feedback like "this could be better" is not useful.
• Respect the author's voice. The goal is clarity, not imposing a different style.
• If the post is personal or opinionated, assess whether the opinion is presented thoughtfully, not whether you agree with it.
• Be honest. If the post is strong, say so. If it has significant problems, say that too.
• Prioritise the most impactful feedback. A few high-value suggestions beat an exhaustive list of nitpicks.