Opus review

Opus review loop

This is the deepest evaluation. It catches what automated tools miss: prose-level repetition, character thinness, ethical gaps, structural monotony.

Procedure

Step 1 — build the manuscript

python scripts/build_manuscript.py <novel-dir>

Writes <novel-dir>/manuscript.md (concatenated chapters separated by ---).

Step 2 — spawn two subagents in parallel

In a single Agent tool call (parallel):

• subagent_type: literary-critic — full manuscript inline. Returns plain-prose newspaper-style review.
• subagent_type: professor-of-fiction — full manuscript inline. Returns numbered actionable items.

For very long manuscripts (>200k chars), pass manuscript.md to each agent and let it Read the file from its own context.

Step 3 — assemble the review document

Write to <novel-dir>/reviews/<timestamp>_review.md:

# Review — <novel title> — <timestamp>

## Literary critic

<critic agent output>

## Professor of fiction

<professor agent output>

Step 4 — parse

python scripts/parse_review.py <novel-dir>/reviews/<timestamp>_review.md > <novel-dir>/reviews/<timestamp>_parsed.json

This extracts:

• star rating (if present)
• numbered professor items, each with severity (major/moderate/minor), type (compression/addition/structural/mechanical/revision), qualified (boolean), suggestion
• aggregate counts
• stop (boolean) and stop_reason

Step 5 — stopping conditions

Stop revising if any of:

1. ★★★★½ rating with 0 major items
2. ≥4 stars with >50% of items qualified/hedged
3. ≤2 items found total

The parser sets stop: true automatically when these fire.

Step 6 — if not stopping

Print the top 3 unqualified major/moderate items. For each one the user / orchestrator wants to address:

1. gen-brief --auto (or with the specific item) → produces a revision brief
2. gen-revision <ch> with the brief → rewrites the chapter
3. Mechanical fixes via apply-cuts for pattern-level issues
4. evaluate-chapter <ch> to confirm improvement
5. Commit-style snapshot of the novel directory

Then re-run opus-review for the next round.

Severity heuristics from the Bells production

• Multiple major items → structural work needed
• Few major, some moderate → targeted revisions, 2-3 more rounds
• All moderate/minor → polish only, 1-2 more rounds
• Mostly qualified hedges → done; ship it

Items that persist across 3+ rounds may be structural to the novel's voice/approach, not bugs. Learn to accept them. The reviewer will ALWAYS find something.

Output to user

Print: stars (if any), total / major / qualified counts, stop verdict and reason. If continuing, list the top 3 actionable items with chapter references.