handbook-gate-reread

Cooling-off reread gate (handbook-gate-reread)

Gates "rereadability": for text just written, the author can't see problems when reading it—the brain automatically fills in the places that don't flow. This gate simulates "the first reader, 48 hours after cooling off, who has completely forgotten the writing intent" rereading the finished draft, specifically hunting for passages that "felt smooth at the time but now look like pits."

Wake-up conditions

The main skill wakes it in the ④ writing loop, after handbook-gate-reader passes (the final gate of this chapter); or it is sent back to draft.

Input

chapter_laid_out(final draft of this chapter)
This chapter's outline skeleton (used to compare "what was written vs what should be written")

Output

reread_verdict: pass / send back (with issue list), written back to book_state.review_log。

verdict structure:

{ status: pass|reject,
  issues: [
    { dim: logic|pacing|depth|closure,
      location: <章节/小节>,
      problem: <一句话：当时觉得顺、现在看是坑>,
      fix_hint: <一句话> } ] }

Referenced atoms (see references/kernel_skills.md)

This skilldoes not own and does not checkany K atom—it is a cooling-off reread check and has its own four categories of issue dimensions.

Four categories of issues

1) Logic gaps (logic)

Between paragraphs and between subsections, things "don't connect": the previous paragraph is still discussing A, and the next suddenly discusses B with no transition in between; an earlier setup ("this issue will be covered later") is planted but not picked up later; a subsection's conclusion depends on a premise the reader does not yet have at that point.

Signal words: "so," "therefore," "but"—when rereading, check one by one whether these connectives actually hold before and after.

2) Dragging pacing (pacing)

What should be fast is slow, and what should be slow is not slow: a concept the reader already understands is explained for three paragraphs; a concept the reader is seeing for the first time is glossed over in one stroke; five consecutive subsections use the same sentence pattern/rhythm with no variation.

Signals: "I skimmed this part" "I had to read this back and forth three times to understand it"—what was skimmed should be cut, and what was read back and forth should be expanded.

3) Inappropriate depth (depth)

Too shallow or too deep: places that should give concrete numbers/commands/screenshots give abstract descriptions ("very simple," "very convenient"); places that should give intuition pile on implementation details (the reader is drowned by How before establishing Why); within the same chapter, depth fluctuates high and low.

Signals: "I thought an example would be given here, but there wasn't one" "Here I only need to know what it is; I don't want to know how it's implemented."

4) Weak closure (closure)

The chapter ending doesn't land: the closing deliverable (K09) is disconnected from the chapter's content (as if copied from elsewhere); the final sentence has no hook for the next chapter, or the hook is unrelated to the next chapter's content; after reading the chapter there is no clear "takeaway" object.

Signals: "I finished reading, but I can't remember what this chapter was about" "That ending paragraph feels dispensable."

Completion criteria

Reread as a first reader who has "completely forgotten the writing intent," without reusing any assumptions from drafting
Scan all four categories of issues one by one, and actively find at least 1 in each category (if none is found, still state "no issues in this category")
Each issue carries the four-piece set: dim + location + problem + fix_hint
All clear → pass; any logic or closure issue → reject (pacing/depth may be recorded as warnings for reference in ⑥'s revision)

Procedure steps

Clear your drafting memory: pretend you never took part in writing this chapter and are reading it for the first time.
Scan in dim order: first logic (check each connective), then pacing (mark paragraphs that cause skimming/re-reading), then depth (check against the outline whether depth matches), and finally closure (check the wrap-up).
For each issue, write in one sentence the specific location where "it felt smooth at the time, but now looks like a pitfall."
Produce a verdict; a logic/closure issue is an automatic veto.

Counterexamples

❌ Re-reading with the understanding you had while drafting ("this is how I thought of it at the time, so there's no problem")—the entire value of a cooling-off re-read lies in forgetting.
✅ Re-read as an unfamiliar reader and discover "a transitional sentence is missing between §X and §Y."
❌ Also reject pacing/depth issues—these two are warnings, for reference in ⑥'s revision; only logic/closure must be fixed before this chapter is finalized.
✅ Logic/closure is an automatic veto; pacing/depth are recorded as warnings for the record.
❌ Each issue says only "this part isn't very good."
✅ Each issue includes location + problem + fix direction ("§X paragraph 3: the cause and effect around 'therefore' does not hold; suggest adding a sentence of intermediate reasoning").