open/ktg-plugin-marketplace
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Releases Wiki Activity Actions

feat(linkedin-studio): v3.1.0 — Endring 9 adversarial review-pakke + per-artefakt personas

Browse source 
Cold, adversarial review package for the long-form pipeline + configurable
per-edition personas. Motivated by Del 4 (Security Champions pivot): the
in-session editor + persona sweep shared the drafting session's framing-bias,
so the shipped version was never independently re-reviewed.

Headless package (9a/9b):
- New Step 6.5 (headless-review) in /linkedin:newsletter, after the persona
  sweep, before lock — the independence layer the in-session gates can't be.
- New standalone /linkedin:headless-review command (run in a fresh session for
  maximum isolation; reconstructs frozen draft + contract + personas from disk).
- 3 new Opus archetypes, each with a cardinal context-isolation block that
  refuses drafting-session framing as "context pollution":
  - content-reviewer (argument integrity C1–C5, ≤8 flags)
  - language-reviewer (Norwegian language L1–L5, ≤10 flags)
  - fact-reviewer (cold re-verification F1–F4, risk-sort + pivot-risk, WebSearch)
- Deliberate redundancy with fact-checker / editorial-reviewer documented so
  the pairs are never de-duplicated.

Pivot-reopen (9c):
- New /linkedin:pivot command: logs articles.NN.pivots[], resets currentPhase,
  un-locks, marks gates to re-run.
- Pivot-detection gate in Step 8 lock precondition (>20% word-count change or
  >2 new sections re-opens cleared gates). Del 4 v8→v11 worked example.

Per-artifact personas (new requirement):
- articles.NN.personas with resolution order (edition-state → series file →
  plugin library → interactive). One or more readers configurable per edition.

Schema/docs:
- edition-state.template.json: additive personas[], pivots[], headlessReview,
  headless-review phase (16 phases); personaSweep.resonance.wordCount baseline.
- 3 fasit fixtures + 3 structural lint tests (Del 4 worked cases).
- Counts: 24→26 commands, 16→19 agents, 15→16 newsletter phases.
- README + CLAUDE.md (plugin + root) + CHANGELOG synced.

Verification: 35 agent-fixture + 59 hook + 20 render tests green. Backward-
compatible (additive state); reload required before the 3 new agents resolve.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Kjell Tore Guttormsen 2026-05-29 13:01:24 +02:00
commit e69ea1f4c9
20 changed files with 2520 additions and 59 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

210
plugins/linkedin-studio/agents/fixtures/content-reviewer-cases.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,210 @@
# Content-Reviewer Fasit Fixture
The Del 4 production round (Security Champions, Maskinrommet, 2026-05-29) as the
gold standard for the `content-reviewer` agent. Late in the round the draft took
a **Security Champions pivot**: a new ~260-word section introducing the Champions
model and a new ~270-word role-description section were added after the
in-session gates had already formed their reading. The in-session gates
(fact-check Step 5, editorial Step 5.5, persona sweep Step 6) all read the draft
through the drafting session's framing — they knew *why* the pivot happened and
*what* it was meant to argue, so they silently supplied the missing argumentative
steps for free. A **cold, adversarial reviewer** — handed only the frozen page —
cannot supply them, and that is exactly the point: the cold read catches the
argument holes the framing hid.
The six cases below are the fasit: a correct `content-reviewer` run on the frozen
Del 4 draft should surface **comparable flags**, mapped to the one axis with
consistent severities.
This file is a *fasit*, not a test harness. The structural lint lives in
`agents/__tests__/content-reviewer-fixture.test.mjs`. Whether the agent's live
flags actually reproduce these directions is `[GATE]`/`[OPERATØR]` — it is **not**
self-certified here.
> **The jury judges; the writer writes.** Every expected output below is
> **direction, not rewritten copy.** A correct agent run hands back flags + a
> severity — never edited prose. (`Foreslått retning`, not a new sentence.)
> **Why this gate exists.** The in-session gates shared the drafting session's
> framing-bias: they read the pivot knowing its intent, so they bridged the
> argument's gaps without noticing the gaps were there. A **cold reader** — run in
> an isolated context with no history, no changelog, no "out of scope" list, no
> pivot narrative — reads the frozen page as a first-time skeptic and finds the
> argument holes the framing hid. Any such framing that reaches the agent is
> **context pollution**: it is named and ignored, never acted on. This is a
> distinct failure surface from craft (editorial), language (language-reviewer),
> truth (fact-reviewer), and response (persona) — those gates can all pass while
> the argument itself does not hold.
---
## The axis (the agent judges on exactly this)
The agent judges on **one axis — argument-integritet** (argument & logical
integrity): *does the reasoning hold?* It does **not** judge craft, language,
factual truth, or reader response — those are `editorial-reviewer`,
`language-reviewer`, `fact-reviewer`, and `persona-reviewer` respectively. The
axis decomposes into exactly five checks:
- **C1 — logiske hull** (logical holes): a step in the argument chain is missing;
the text jumps from A to C without B, and the reader cannot reconstruct why the
conclusion follows.
- **C2 — ubegrunnede antakelser** (unsupported assumptions): the argument leans on
a premise it never establishes, asserted as self-evident when a thoughtful
reader would not simply grant it.
- **C3 — argument-motsigelser** (argument-level contradiction): the recommendation,
premise, and payoff are not mutually consistent — distinct from editorial-
reviewer's P4 (a *prose-level* contradiction between two passages); C3 is a
contradiction in the *logic of the argument itself*.
- **C4 — manglende konkretisering der argumentet trenger det** (missing
argumentative concretization): a load-bearing claim a skeptic would only believe
with a concrete instance stays abstract — not for vividness (editorial A1) but
because the argument *needs* the instance to carry weight.
- **C5 — ubesvart «what about X?»** (the unanswered obvious objection): the
strongest obvious objection a thoughtful reader raises is never acknowledged or
answered — the argument wins only because it never met its best counter.
## Severity (every flag carries exactly one)
- **BLOCK** — a defect that breaks the argument: an argument-level contradiction
(C3), or an unanswered objection (C5) that, once raised, collapses the
recommendation.
- **REWORK** — a real gap that should be filled, not load-bearing-fatal: a logical
hole (C1), an unsupported load-bearing assumption (C2), a claim that needs
concretization (C4).
- **NICE** — a minor reasoning soft spot worth tightening if cheap.
Sort BLOCK → REWORK → NICE; cap at **eight** flags (argument defects are coarser
than prose nits); if any are suppressed, say how many and of what severity —
never silently truncate.
---
## The six Del 4 argument points (fasit)
Each case states the argument defect a cold read would catch on the frozen Del 4
draft, the check (C1–C5) it belongs to, the expected severity, and the direction a
correct agent run returns. Every case is an **argument blind spot** — distinct
from craft (what `editorial-reviewer` would catch) and response (what
`persona-reviewer` would catch). The in-session gates passed the draft; the cold
read does not, because the framing they shared is gone.
### Case 1 — pivot-premisset asserted uten støtte (unsupported pivot premise)
- **Axis:** argument-integritet · **Check:** C2 · **Severity:** BLOCK
- **Cold-read defect:** The new ~260-word Security Champions section opens by
treating "Security Champions er svaret" as an established premise the rest of
the part builds on — but the frozen page never establishes *why* the Champions
model is the right response rather than one option among several. The drafting
session knew the rationale; the cold reader is handed only the assertion.
- **Fasit / direction:** The pivot's load-bearing premise is asserted as
self-evident with no support a first-time skeptic would grant. Direction:
establish why the Champions model follows from the part's problem, or hedge it
as one option — do not let the whole section rest on an un-earned premise. (An
unsupported *load-bearing* premise that the section depends on is BLOCK: the
argument has not earned the right to make its central move.)
### Case 2 — ubesvart «hva med små organisasjoner?» (unanswered obvious objection)
- **Axis:** argument-integritet · **Check:** C5 · **Severity:** BLOCK
- **Cold-read defect:** The strongest obvious objection a thoughtful reader raises
on first reading the Champions pivot — *"what about small organisations that
cannot staff a dedicated Champion?"* — is never acknowledged or answered. The
recommendation effectively assumes an org large enough to nominate a Champion,
and the argument wins only because it never meets this counter.
- **Fasit / direction:** Name the objection and answer it (a small-org variant, an
explicit scope boundary, or a rule of thumb) — an unanswered objection that, once
raised, collapses the recommendation for a whole class of readers is BLOCK.
Direction only; the agent does not write the answer.
### Case 3 — sprang fra «Champions finnes» til «dømmekraft bevart» (logical hole)
- **Axis:** argument-integritet · **Check:** C1 · **Severity:** REWORK
- **Cold-read defect:** The text jumps from *"Security Champions finnes i
organisasjonen"* (A) to *"dermed er dømmekraften bevart"* (C) with no connecting
step (B): existence of a role does not on its own establish that judgment is
preserved. The reader cannot reconstruct why the conclusion follows. The session
carried the missing step in its head; the page does not state it.
- **Fasit / direction:** Supply the missing step — *how* the Champion's presence
translates into preserved judgment (mechanism, mandate, practice) — or soften the
conclusion to a hypothesis. A bridgeable-but-unbridged jump on a supporting line
is REWORK.
### Case 4 — rolle-seksjonen aldri forankret i én konkret org (missing concretization)
- **Axis:** argument-integritet · **Check:** C4 · **Severity:** REWORK
- **Cold-read defect:** The new ~270-word role-description section describes what a
Champion *does* entirely in the abstract and never grounds it in **one concrete
organisation** where this role actually operates. This is not a vividness nit
(that would be editorial A1) — the *argument* that the role works needs one real
instance to be believed; a skeptic will not grant an abstract job description as
evidence the model functions.
- **Fasit / direction:** Anchor the role in a single concrete (preferably
Norwegian) org where a Champion operates, so the load-bearing claim "this role
works" carries weight. Flag the *absence of the argument-bearing instance*; do
not supply the org. (Boundary: route any pure craft/vividness face to editorial
A1; this flag is the argument face — the claim cannot be believed abstractly.)
### Case 5 — anbefaling delegerer den dømmekraften serien sier ikke kan settes ut (argument contradiction)
- **Axis:** argument-integritet · **Check:** C3 · **Severity:** BLOCK
- **Cold-read defect:** The series premise is *"du kan ikke sette ut dømmekraft"*
(you cannot outsource judgment). The Champions recommendation, read cold on the
frozen page, effectively **delegates that judgment** to the Champion — the close
recommends the very move the premise rules out. Premise, recommendation, and
payoff are not mutually consistent. This is an argument-level contradiction (C3),
not a prose-level one between two passages (that would be editorial P4): the
*logic* defeats itself.
- **Fasit / direction:** Hold premise, recommendation, and gevinst side by side and
resolve one side — either reframe the Champion as *supporting* judgment that
stays distributed (not a delegate it is outsourced to), or qualify the series
premise. A recommendation that defeats the series premise is BLOCK.
### Case 6 — gevinst-leddet antar utbredt modenhet (unsupported assumption)
- **Axis:** argument-integritet · **Check:** C2 · **Severity:** REWORK
- **Cold-read defect:** The promised payoff of the Champions model leans on an
unstated assumption that the surrounding organisation is mature enough to use a
Champion well (clear mandate, time allocation, leadership backing). The frozen
page asserts the gevinst as if it follows automatically; the cold reader sees an
un-earned premise standing between the model and its benefit.
- **Fasit / direction:** Establish or hedge the maturity assumption the payoff
depends on — name the conditions under which the gevinst holds, or mark it
conditional. A load-bearing assumption left unstated under the payoff is REWORK
(it weakens the case rather than defeating it outright).
---
## Expected aggregate (what a correct run looks like)
- **Total flags:** 6 (well within the ≤8 cap — no suppression needed).
- **By check:** C1 = 1 (Case 3) · C2 = 2 (Cases 1, 6) · C3 = 1 (Case 5) ·
C4 = 1 (Case 4) · C5 = 1 (Case 2).
- **By severity:** BLOCK = 3 (Cases 1, 2, 5 — unsupported pivot premise,
unanswered small-org objection, premise/recommendation contradiction) ·
REWORK = 3 (Cases 3, 4, 6) · NICE = 0.
- **All six are argument blind spots:** none is a craft defect (`editorial-
reviewer`'s domain), a language defect (`language-reviewer`), a factual error
(`fact-reviewer`), or a resonance miss (`persona-reviewer`). The in-session
gates passed the draft on every one of those axes — and still the argument did
not hold, because they read it through the session's framing. The cold read is
the quantified case for the gate.
A run that reproduces ~these six directions, on the one argument-integritet axis,
with ~these severities, is **comparable** to the cold adversarial read the gate is
built to deliver. Exact wording is the editor's; the agent returns
**direction, not rewritten copy.**
## Calibration boundary
Whether the agent's live flags truly match this fasit is judged by the operator
(`[OPERATØR]`), not self-certified here. This fixture is the calibration target,
the same way `editorial-reviewer-cases.md`, `persona-reviewer-cases.md`, and
`fact-checker-cases.md` are fasits for their agents.
> **Live-run note.** A live run on the frozen Del 4 draft requires (a) a Claude
> Code session reload — a freshly added agent is not invokable until the plugin
> agent set is rebuilt at session start — and (b) a genuinely **cold** invocation
> (an isolated context with no drafting-session history, changelog, scope list, or
> pivot narrative reaching the agent). Until both hold, this fixture is the
> gold-standard of record.