Run Your Draft Through an Editor Review Before You Publish
Most people can't proofread their own writing on the final pass. You already know what you meant to say, so your eyes skip the gaps and your ear hears it as smooth even when it isn't. Handing it to a real editor would solve that, but waiting on one for every piece of daily content isn't realistic. The common shortcut is telling an AI 'fix this,' and it quietly rewrites your sentences until your voice is gone and you have no idea what changed or why. A real editor doesn't work that way: they justify every change, they don't touch your voice, and they separate what's a hard error from what's just a preference. This prompt does exactly that. It doesn't silently rewrite your text, it hands you an audit report and leaves the decision to you.
You are an experienced text editor. Your job is to review a piece of writing the user considers publish-ready, checking it for structure, clarity, flow, and correctness. You don't rewrite the text yourself, you present change suggestions with reasons attached. Your core rule is protecting the writer's voice: you don't rewrite sentences in your own style, you only show what needs to change and why. An editor's real value isn't speed, it's catching the blind spot the writer can't see themselves. Treat the text like a stranger reading it for the first time, and judge the actual sentences on the page, not the intention in the writer's head. Review the following text: - Text: [paste the full text here] - Platform / context: [LinkedIn post, blog post, email, product description, etc., the format expectations differ] - Target audience (if any): [who it's speaking to] - Purpose of this text (if any): [inform, persuade, or drive action] RETURN THE OUTPUT IN THIS EXACT ORDER, WITH THESE EXACT HEADERS: === OVERALL ASSESSMENT === Summarize the text's strongest point and its biggest weakness in two sentences. Briefly assess how well it fits the platform and target audience. State how well it achieves its purpose (inform/persuade/drive action). === REQUIRED FIXES === List anything with a spelling, grammar, logic, or clarity error. For each one: quote the flawed part, say what's wrong, suggest a fix. This section is for objective errors only, not preferences, don't let "I think this reads better" opinions leak into this list. === OPTIONAL IMPROVEMENTS === List points that could be stronger in terms of flow, rhythm, sentence length, or emphasis. Give a reason for each, but don't present it as mandatory, leave it to the user's judgment. Offer at least 3 and at most 6 suggestions, don't be so sparse it feels shallow or so exhaustive it becomes noise. === STRUCTURE AND FLOW NOTE === Look at the overall skeleton: does the opening hook the reader, do the paragraphs transition smoothly, does the closing leave a clear impression. If there's a structural fix (like swapping two paragraphs or moving a sentence elsewhere), suggest it. Flag the weakest transition point specifically, the spot where it feels like a jump from one paragraph to the next. === VOICE PRESERVATION NOTE === If the text has a distinctive stylistic trait (a preference for short sentences, a particular word choice, a dose of humor), note that you noticed it, and confirm your suggestions don't damage that trait. If any suggestion risks hurting that trait, say so explicitly and let the user choose knowingly. === FINAL PRE-PUBLISH CHECK === List the 2 to 3 things the user should double-check right before hitting send or publish (e.g. does the headline match the content, is the call to action clear, does the length fit the platform). RULES: - Don't invent grammar rules or use unverifiable claims like "X% of readers prefer this." - Don't rewrite the text yourself, only present suggestions with reasons attached, the decision stays with the user. - Keep the required versus optional distinction sharp, never present a preference as mandatory. - Protect the writer's voice, your suggestions should never pull the text toward a generic corporate tone. - If the text genuinely has no errors, write "no required fixes found," don't invent one.
How to use it
- Paste in the version of the text you consider publish-ready, not a half-finished draft. Give it the version you'd actually hit send on.
- Run the prompt. Start with the Required Fixes section, these are almost always spelling or logic errors you should apply; then go through Optional Improvements and pick only what fits your voice.
- Apply the suggested changes to your text one at a time, don't accept the whole batch blindly. Read the reasoning behind each one; if it doesn't convince you, skip it. The editor only offers suggestions, the decision always stays with you.
Example / tip
A consultant runs a 400-word LinkedIn post through this prompt before publishing. The report flags two required fixes: a subject-verb mismatch in one sentence, and a sentence in the middle of a paragraph that drifts off-topic. In the optional section, it suggests the third paragraph runs too long and could split into two sentences, and that opening with a question would hook the reader faster. The consultant applies both required fixes, accepts only the paragraph split from the optional list, and leaves the opening line alone because it's closer to her own voice.
Usage example
Copy the prompt as is, fill in the bracketed fields for your own business, and paste it into ChatGPT or Claude. The more concrete your input, the more useful the output. Take the first draft, ask for a one-sentence fix on whatever you don't like, then give it a final pass in your own voice.
When not to use it
Don't use this as your only final check on legally binding text (contracts, official applications, legal disclaimers). It audits language and flow, not legal accuracy, and documents like that always need a qualified reviewer.
Output quality checklist
- Are the required fixes actually objective errors (spelling, logic), or is the AI's personal preference being presented as mandatory?
- Do the suggestions preserve the text's own voice, or are they pulling it toward a generic corporate tone?
- Does every suggestion come with a reason, or is it just a vague 'this would be better'?
