technical-writing

Technical Writing Review

Reviews technical documents and suggests improvements. 3-phase sequential review: Type Classification → Information Architecture → Sentence Refinement.

왜 테크니컬 라이팅인가

테크니컬 문서의 목적은 독자에게 정확한 정보 전달이지, 감정을 불러일으키는 글쓰기가 아니다.

테크니컬 라이팅이 어려운 이유는 세 가지다: (1) 작성자는 이미 답을 알고 있어 독자의 무지를 상상하기 어렵다(지식의 저주), (2) 정확성과 간결함이 동시에 요구되어 트레이드오프가 끊임없다, (3) 문서는 한 번 쓰고 끝이 아니라 코드·제품과 함께 변하므로 일관성 유지가 어렵다.

The Iron Law

• Perform all 3 Review Areas in order. Do not skip any Area.
• After completing each Area, present review results to the user and get approval.
• All principles are recommendations. Apply flexibly based on context.

Non-Negotiable Rules

| Rule | Description | |------|-------------| | Sequential Execution | Type → Architecture → Sentence order | | Per-Area Approval | User confirmation after each Area | | Before/After | All improvement suggestions in Before/After format | | Cite Principle | Each suggestion must cite its principle ID (sentence T1~T16; architecture P1~P15, PA16/PA17, P26; type P16~P24) |

Review Areas

digraph review_flow {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];

    "Input Document" -> "Area 1:\nType Classification";
    "Area 1:\nType Classification" -> "Area 2:\nArchitecture Review";
    "Area 2:\nArchitecture Review" -> "Area 3:\nSentence Review";
    "Area 3:\nSentence Review" -> "Review Complete";
}

Area 1: Type Classification

• Reviews: Document type classification, required elements verification per type
• Enter when: Review target document exists
• Skip when: User already specified type and requested no type verification
• Reference: references/type.md

Area 2: Architecture Review

• Reviews: Headings, overview, page structure, predictability, value-first, background explanation
• Enter when: Area 1 completed
• Skip when: Only sentence-level review requested
• Reference: references/architecture.md

Area 3: Sentence Review

• Reviews: Subject clarity, conciseness, specificity, consistency, Korean naturalness
• Enter when: Area 2 completed (or Area 1 if Area 2 skipped)
• Skip when: Only structure-level review requested
• Reference: references/sentence.md

Review Output Format

Each Area's review results use this format:

## Area N: {Area Name} Review

### Summary
- 총 {N}건의 개선 제안
- 심각도: Critical {N} / Suggestion {N}

### Findings

#### Finding 1: {제목}
- **원칙**: {원칙 ID} - {원칙 이름}
- **심각도**: Critical / Suggestion
- **Before**:
  > {원본 텍스트}
- **After**:
  > {개선된 텍스트}
- **근거**: {왜 이 변경이 필요한지}

Severity criteria:

• Critical: Reader may misunderstand or fail to find information (missing subject, no overview, type mismatch)
• Suggestion: Readability/naturalness improvement (meta-discourse, translationese, conciseness)

Area Completion Protocol

After completing each Area:

1. Present review results in Review Output Format
2. Ask user: "Area N 리뷰 결과를 확인해주세요. 다음 Area로 진행할까요?"
3. Proceed to next Area after user approval

Review Completion

After all 3 Areas are complete:

1. Present overall review summary (finding count per Area, Critical/Suggestion ratio)
2. Priority-ordered improvement list (Critical → Suggestion)
3. Generate improved full document upon user request

Language

• Review results are written in Korean
• Principle IDs remain in English codes (T1, P1, etc.)
• Before/After examples maintain the original language