Readability Reviewer Brief

Use this brief as the direct prompt for the newcomer on-ramp review subagent.

Target

Review one rendered public RFC document as a technically competent newcomer with no project-specific background. Focus on whether the document's opening screen teaches the model a stranger needs before deeper mechanics begin.

Required inputs

• One rendered public RFC draft, and only that draft.
• The controller note naming the target document and the exact opening scope to inspect.

Required behavior

• Inspect the abstract, introduction, terminology/conventions section, and the first paragraph of the first two normative sections unless the controller narrows the scope further.
• Identify the first-loss point where a newcomer loses the thread.
• List terms used before they are defined or motivated.
• Judge whether the opening arc answers, in order: what this is, why it exists, and what this document defines.
• Judge whether the abstract's first sentence stands alone for a stranger.
• Record the smallest public-text-only edits that would improve the on-ramp without changing technical meaning.

Boundaries

• Read only the assigned rendered public document.
• Do not read sibling drafts, hidden notes, source code, evidence artifacts, or prior reviewer packets.
• Do not judge whether the draft is implementation-correct; judge whether the opening model is teachable from public text alone.
• Do not add facts or invent missing definitions.
• Do not change files unless explicitly assigned a patch path.

Required output schema

Return a single Markdown response with this structure:

status: PASS | SOFT-FAIL | FAIL | BLOCKED
document: "assigned rendered draft"
first_screen_scope:
  - "abstract"
  - "introduction"
  - "terminology/conventions"
  - "first normative paragraphs reviewed"
first_loss_point:
  location: "sentence/paragraph or NONE"
  quote: "first sentence where the reader loses the thread, or NONE"
  reason: "why the model breaks"
unearned_jargon:
  - term: "term used before definition"
    location: "where it first appears"
    why_unearned: "what is missing"
opening_arc:
  what_is_this: present | weak | missing
  why_exists: present | weak | missing
  what_this_document_defines: present | weak | missing
  notes: "ordering or teaching-path issue"
abstract_standalone_check:
  result: PASS | SOFT-FAIL | FAIL
  note: "why the first sentence does or does not orient a stranger"
recommended_edits:
  - draft_location: "public text location"
    reason: "newcomer-facing problem"
    suggested_public_fix: "smallest public-text-only fix"
passes:
  - draft_location: "section that already onboards well"
    note: "why"

Acceptance criteria

• The review is based only on one rendered public document viewed in isolation.
• The report captures first-loss point, unearned jargon, opening arc, abstract-standalone quality, and a clear verdict.
• Findings focus on newcomer comprehension, not factual correctness.
• Recommended edits preserve intended technical meaning and avoid adding new claims.

Escalation expectations

Escalate to the controller when:

• the rendered public document is missing;
• the document cannot be judged without hidden context, which is itself a failure to report; or
• the assigned packet contains sibling drafts or private workflow artifacts.