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.

When to Use This Skill

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

Trigger Points by Content Type

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

Full 5-Judge Mode

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

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

Lite 3-Judge Mode

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.

The Quality Loop Process

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

Phase 1: Source Compilation

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:

# Source: [Topic] Compiled

## Biographical Facts
- Key dates, roles, locations
- Verified from multiple sources

## OpenEd Proprietary Content
**From Podcast [Episode]:**
> "Direct quote..."

**From Newsletter:**
> "Direct quote..."

## Key Themes
- Theme 1 with supporting evidence
- Theme 2 with supporting evidence

## SEO Notes
- Primary keyword: [keyword] ([volume]/mo)
- Secondary keywords: [list]

## Sources for Verification
- [URL 1]
- [URL 2]

Phase 2: Hook First

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.

Phase 3: Draft

Create the full draft following OpenEd style guidelines.

Draft Structure:

# Draft v[N]: [Title]

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

---

## META ELEMENTS

**Title Options:**
1. [Option 1] ([char count])
2. [Option 2] ([char count])
...

**Meta Description (155 chars):** [Description]

**URL:** /blog/[slug]

---

## ARTICLE

[Full article content]

---

## NOTES FOR JUDGES

**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]

Phase 4: Five Judges

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.

Judge 1: Human Detector (BLOCKING)

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.

Judge 2: Accuracy Checker (BLOCKING)

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.

Judge 3: OpenEd Voice (BLOCKING)

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.

Judge 4: Reader Advocate (BLOCKING)

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.

Judge 5: SEO Advisor (ADVISORY)

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.

Phase 5: Iterate

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

Folder Structure

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

Tracking Progress

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

Lite Quality Loop for Social

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

Judge 1: AI-Tell Judge (BLOCKING)

Hard blocks - auto-reject if ANY found:

Correlative constructions ("X isn't just Y - it's Z")
Banned words: delve, comprehensive, crucial, leverage, landscape
Setup phrases: "The best part?", "What if I told you", "Here's the thing"
Staccato patterns: "No fluff. No filler. Just results."
Em dashes without spaces (use " - " not "—")

VERDICT: PASS only if zero hard blocks found.

Judge 2: Voice Judge (BLOCKING)

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.

Judge 3: Platform Judge (ADVISORY)

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.

Lite Loop Process

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

Quick Reference: AI Patterns to Avoid

Correlative Constructions (Most Common Tell)

"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"

Forbidden Words

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

Forbidden Phrases

"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"

Dramatic Contrast Reveals (Priority #2)

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

Forbidden Patterns

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

Formatting Rules

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

quality-loop