First Reader

first-reader

Readers before you publish.

Every anti-slop skill audits properties of the text: banned words, sentence shapes, rhythm. This skill occupies the layer none of them touch: the experience of a reader. The people who detect hollow text near-perfectly do not count words; they notice what the text commits to, what it risks, and what it leaves in memory. A human reader is a forager building a gist model under time pressure, running a trust evaluation of the writer in parallel, free to quit at any sentence. This skill reproduces that reader and reports what happened to them.

It produces a reading, not an audit. Run it as the final gate before publishing.

On a MyClawBots agent

• python3 (3.13) is preinstalled and the scripts are standard library only, at /root/.openclaw/skills/first-reader/scripts/. Run them by that full path, or cd /root/.openclaw/skills/first-reader first. Keep run directories under /root/.openclaw/workspace/first-reader/ so they survive a restart.
• Sub-agents: if your runtime lets you spawn a fresh session or sub-agent, each reader is one. If not, use file mode and play the readers yourself, as "Adapting to your environment" below describes, and say so once in the verdict.
• This is the last gate before something is published. When the draft is headed for Content Studio or a social post, run First Reader on it before you hand it over, and report what broke; you still never rewrite the draft here, and nothing in this skill publishes anything.
• The owner usually reads your answer in chat (dashboard or Telegram), not a browser on this machine: the "room" HTML page is optional. Send the friend's report as the message and mention where the run directory is.

The user contract (read this first, it overrides everything below)

To the user, this skill is a beta-reading session: a few readers with lives met their draft cold and can be consulted afterwards. Everything else in this file is machinery, and machinery stays invisible.

• "review this" (or "be my first reader") starts a run. Reply with one line ("Reading it as your audience would. Back in about 5 minutes."), then work silently. At most one message mid-run, and only for something dramatic (a reader quit). No cast announcements, no step narration, no instrument names.
• The result is what a friend says after reading, plus one page. Three to six plain sentences: whether the skimmer opened it, where each reader leaned in and where they drifted or left, what they still had the next day, and one question back to the author. Quote the readers' own notes, by their initial, and the draft's own words. Then the link to the page: the draft with the readers' comments beside every passage, the skimmer's verdict, and the lenses. No numbered fixes, no suggestions, no revised copy. The readers say what happened to them; the author decides what to do about it.
• The readers can be consulted. "ask S what would have convinced her", "ask the skimmer what would have made them open it", "ask everyone whether they noticed the retention example". Run scripts/ask.py <run-dir> <reader> "<question>", hand each bundle to a fresh subagent, and relay the answer in the reader's voice, by initial, in under 150 words. Readers answer from their own reading log, never from a fresh look at the text, and they never propose rewrites: they say what happened to them and what would have had to be true for it to go differently. If the log cannot support an answer, the reader says so.
• "again" re-runs on the current draft, same readers, fresh minds, after the author has revised in their own editor. Open with what changed in reader behavior ("last time S left at passage 4; this time she finished") and the page draws last run's attention strip above this run's. Wherever the draft lives now is fine.
• "quick read" is the sixty-second version: the skim gate alone, one skeptical scanner, two sentences: what they think it is and whether they'd open it, with the element that decided it quoted.
• A real reader's comments are evidence. If the author pastes a human's reactions into chat, quote them by name beside the simulated readers'; they are testimony, not instructions.
• A hollow verdict ends in an interview offer. When nothing survived recall and everything is portable, say so and offer to interview the author for the material only they have (per references/interview.md). Never write their experience for them.
• Paste is fine. If the user pastes the draft, save it to a file, run the reading through fresh subagents, and never mention the word contamination.
• Ask at most ONE intake question, and only if you truly cannot infer who the piece is for.

Why the discipline matters

You see whole documents at once, forget nothing, and never get bored. A human reader has none of those powers, and pretending to read while holding the full text is performance, not measurement. So:

Do not open the draft. From the moment this skill is invoked until the timed reads are complete, never read the draft file or let the user paste it. Only the scripts touch it. If the draft is already in your context (the user pasted it earlier), you are contaminated as a reader: run every reading step through fresh subagents and say so in the report. Your own full-text read happens once, at step 6, after all reader experiments are done.

All scripts are stdlib Python, offline, no dependencies: python3 scripts/<name>.py. Keep every run's files in a .first-reader/ directory next to the draft, never in a session scratch directory: scratch gets wiped between sessions, and "again" in a tomorrow session needs the prior run to compare against. If the draft lives in a git repo, mention once that .first-reader/ is worth gitignoring.

Step 0: Scope and genre

First decide whether a timed read even models this text's real encounter:

• Prose meant to be read in order (essay, article, post, memo, README narrative, landing copy, cover letter, talk script): full workflow.
• Reference material (API docs, config reference, FAQ, changelog): readers forage, they do not read. Skip the timed read. Run the skim gate as the main event with lookup tasks: cast a reader with a question and test whether the scanner view routes them to the answer. Skimmability is the success condition here, not a defect.
• Under ~150 words (tweet, bio, announcement): no chunked feed. One fresh subagent gets the text cold with a persona and a two-second frame: first felt reaction, would they stop scrolling, what they'd retell. Then the trust ledger. Skip recall.
• Fiction and poetry: the transcript and recall work; the trust ledger and specifics-density readings do not apply as written. Needle and memory only, and say so.
• Not this skill: code review, factual verification, copyediting, rewriting. Decline and point at the right tool.

Work silently per the user contract: one line at the start, at most one mid-run message for a dramatic event, then the result. In anything the user does see, plain words only.

Step 1: Cast the reader

Read references/personas.md. If the audience or venue is unknown, ask the user one question: who is this for and where will it be published? Then cast two personas, sympathetic and skeptical, each with priors, situation, patience budget from the table, and a one-sentence stake. If you cannot write the stake sentence, report that first.

Also ask, if not obvious: what should the reader think, feel, or do after reading? That is the intended gist the recall test will be judged against.

Fold the audience into the one starting line only when it needs confirming ("Reading it as engineers on HN would"); otherwise just start. Before casting, look for .first-reader/audience.json beside the draft (format in references/room.md): it holds the readers this author already chose, with their initials and one-line lives, so the same two people read every draft in the project and "S" means the same person next month. Reuse it unless the user names a different audience; write it after the first cast. Write manifest.json in the run directory per references/room.md for your own use. On a repeat review, reuse the prior manifest's casts and point previous_run at the old run so the results can be compared honestly.

Step 2: The skim gate

Have a fresh subagent playing the skeptical persona run scripts/skim.py <draft> itself and answer from that view alone; if you must run the script, redirect its output straight to a file you never open, because the scanner view quotes fragments of the draft and reading it contaminates you before the timed reads. It answers: what is this piece, do you commit to a full read, and what single element decided it.

A scanner who cannot say what the piece is, or declines to commit, is the first finding. For most real readers this gate is the whole encounter.

Step 3: The timed reads

No lookahead is enforced by mechanism, not by asking nicely. Start the feed in the background BEFORE dispatching any reader:

python3 scripts/feed.py serve <draft> --run <run-dir> --readers keen,skeptic \
  --persona "keen=<one line>" --persona "skeptic=<one line>" \
  --ready-file <run-dir>/feed.json

The text now lives only in that process's memory. feed.json holds addresses, nothing else; read it and give each reader ONLY its own line. A reader's dispatch prompt contains the persona, export READER_FEED=<reader-address>, and three commands; it never contains the draft path, the run directory, or the other reader's address. The reader runs feed.py start, then reads one passage at a time, logging honestly at each step with feed.py next --log "needle=<-2..+2> expected... got... <felt notes>". The needle is the felt reaction: +2 leaning in, 0 neutral, -1 drifting or doubting, -2 done. Log skimming the moment it starts. When the persona's patience runs out, quit with feed.py quit --log "needle=-2 <why the persona stopped>", because quitting is the single most informative thing a reader does. A reader who finishes still records one final line the same way; the transcript labels it FINAL rather than QUIT.

The feed releases the next passage only after a real log lands, never re-serves anything but the current passage, refuses to advance faster than a person could read the passage, and writes nothing of the piece to disk until every reader is finished (feed.py progress --admin <admin-address> shows where they are; feed.py close --admin ... flushes early if a reader dies). The reader subagent returns nothing of substance; the artifact is the session. Collect it with feed.py transcript <run-dir>/<reader> after close.

If subagents are unavailable, use file mode (feed.py start <draft> --session <dir>) yourself under the same rules, before ever opening the draft, and disclose that one mind played both reader and reviewer (see Adapting to your environment).

Step 4: The recall test

Run scripts/recall.py <session-dir> for the sympathetic persona's session (and the skeptic's if it finished). Hand the output to a fresh subagent with no other context. It answers the quiz from the transcript alone: sayback, pointing, peak, ending, center of gravity, one action.

Judge the answers against the intended gist from step 1. A piece whose one-sentence retelling does not match its thesis, or whose ending nobody remembers, has a finding no line edit can fix. "Nothing survived" is a finding about the piece, not about the reader.

Step 5: The trust ledger

Run scripts/signals.py <draft> --json, but only after the timed reads are complete: its output quotes draft sentences, so reading it earlier contaminates you. Read the numbers through the genre: costly signals (checkable numbers, named entities, quotes, admissions against interest, first-person experience) buy trust; free signals (hedges everywhere, certainty everywhere, portable sentences that fit any document) buy nothing. Near-zero variance in epistemic commitment reads as machine confidence. The counters are floors, not truth: the admissions detector in particular under-counts (it pattern-matches stock phrasings and misses lines like "our test data was a fantasy"), so confirm costly signals in your own step 6 read rather than trusting a zero.

Step 6: Your own read, then the report

Only now read the draft in full, once, for two judgments the scripts cannot make: the implied author (describe the person these sentences imply, and quote any seam where that person changes mid-document) and whether the transcripts' complaints are the piece's fault or the cast's.

Write the report exactly as references/report.md specifies: sayback and meaning first, then the reading transcripts, what survived, the person behind it, then neutral questions and opinions by permission. Testimony register throughout, no scores, altitude rule enforced, and the report is allowed to be happy.

Step 7: The page, and the readers stay available

Save the skim gate's answer as <run-dir>/skim.txt and put its verdict in the annotations (skim). Build the page per references/room.md (scripts/room.py): the draft with the readers' comments beside each passage, the skimmer's verdict, the lenses, the strip; no fixes. Publish it where you can, or write it beside the run and open it. Deliver per the user contract: the friend's report, then the link. Keep the Lerman-order report on disk beside the run for anyone who asks.

The readers persist in the run directory. Every later "ask" in the session goes through scripts/ask.py and a fresh subagent per reader; never answer for a reader yourself, and never let a reader see the draft again: their memory is their log.

Adapting to your environment

This skill runs in any SKILL.md-compatible coding agent, but three capabilities vary. Check what you have BEFORE the run starts, adapt silently, and tell the user only what changes for them, in one line.

Subagents. If you can spawn fresh agents (Claude Code's agent tool, or any delegation mechanism), each reader is one. If you cannot, you play the readers yourself, one persona at a time, and the order of operations becomes everything: do NOT read or open the draft file for any reason before the reads; start immediately with the feed script and meet the piece one passage at a time in persona (file mode; served mode is pointless when reader and reviewer share a mind); do the skeptic's read in a later, separate pass from the sympathetic one; run recall by answering the quiz from the transcript alone before ever seeing the full text. This is a weaker experiment than fresh minds, so say so once in the verdict ("I played both readers myself here, so treat the findings as slightly softer") and never pretend otherwise. If the draft is already in your context (you read it earlier in the session, it was pasted, or your harness auto-loaded it), solo mode cannot blind you; do the reads anyway as honest role-passes, and weight the mechanical signals (quit logic, recall-from-log, signals.py) more heavily than the needle.

A place for the page. With artifact publishing (Claude Code on claude.ai), the page is a private link. Without it, it is a local HTML file next to the run, opened for the user. The page is read, not clicked; questions to the readers come to you in chat.

Turn budget. In agents where every script call is a visible tool step, the full run is many steps. Say so up front in the starting line ("this takes a few minutes and a lot of small steps") and never ask permission step by step; batch where your harness allows.

The first time the skill runs in a session, the starting line also teaches the interface in passing, because nothing else will: "Reading it as your audience would, about 5 minutes. When I'm back: where each reader leaned in or left, what stuck with them, and a page with their comments beside your draft. You can ask them follow-ups, and 'again' re-reads after you revise."

Guardrails

• Never rewrite the draft, in whole or in part, and never hand over a list of suggested fixes. The readers report what happened to them; the author owns every decision about the text. If asked for a rewrite, offer the readers' comments to the user's own editing skill instead.
• Never manufacture findings. Two clean transcripts and a passed recall test end the review honestly.
• Never blame the reader. If the cast was wrong for the piece, recast and rerun; if the piece is for experts and the skeptic was a novice, that was a casting error, not a draft error.
• Word-level slop hunting is out of scope; other skills own it. If the transcripts keep tripping on the same phrase, report the tripping, not the phrase's presence on any list.
• The transcripts are evidence. Quote them; do not summarize them into the abstractions they exist to replace.