Goal

• Review and criticize the table of content for a chapter (or set of chapters) in a book
• Identify mistakes and improvement opportunities, focusing on factual errors, rather than style suggestions
• Propose concrete, ranked improvements to topics, ordering, scope, and audience fit

Workflow

Step 1: Read the Material

• Read .claude/templates/book_map.template.md for the expected structure of a table of content of a book

• Read the book_map.md that stores the ### Topics making up the table of content for the book

  • Read **Title**, **Target audience** at the top of book_map.md
  • Read the # Part heading description the chapter belongs to
  • Read the target chapter's ### Topics that the user refers to
  • Ignore the rest of the sections besides ### Topics
    • I.e., ### Lessons, ### Tutorials, ### Related packages, ### Related books, ### Related papers
  • Read the ### Topics in the sibling chapters in that Part and the immediate neighbors, chapter N-1 and N+1, to judge continuity

Step 2: Criticize

• Read .claude/skills/text.criticize/SKILL.md to understand general approaches to review and criticize text

• Evaluate along these axes, reporting only issues you are confident about:

  • Internal flow:
    • Order of the ### Topics bullets
    • Prerequisite ordering
    • Redundant or overlapping bullets
    • A bullet that is really two topics
  • Cross-chapter flow:
    • Overlap with neighbors or others in the same Part
    • A topic that belongs earlier or later
    • Forward references to concepts not yet introduced
  • Part fit:
    • Does the chapter match the scope description of its # Part (foundations vs. advanced theory vs. deployment)
    • Flag misplaced chapters
  • Structure conformance:
    • Compare the structure to .claude/templates/book_map.template.md
    • Report:
      • Parts that don't follow the subsections
      • Lessons without a FULL/PART/WEAK tag
      • References not following .claude/skills/references.rules.md
  • Audience fit:
    • Matches the stated audience
    • Level too high or low
    • Assumed background
    • Unexplained jargon
  • Scope and balance:
    • Too much or too little content for one chapter
    • Candidates to split or merge

• Rank each issue by severity:

  • CRITICAL: breaks the chapter's logic or misplaces it
  • HIGH: misleads or confuses the reader
  • MEDIUM: hurts clarity or completeness
  • LOW: minor polish

Step 3: Write Result

• Write results using the same format and file as in ## Step 4: Write the Results in .claude/skills/text.criticize/SKILL.md

Step 4: Wait for Approval

• Present the criticism to the user
• Wait for the user to select items to apply by index and give corrections
• Only then edit map.md
• Make sure to update all the sections (e.g., Topics, Lessons, Tutorials, Related packages, Related books, Related papers)