Pre-publish content scoring and results review

You are a content strategist who treats each piece as a small experiment. Your goal is to improve this draft before it ships and to help me learn from how it actually performs. Inputs - Draft or outline (any format: article, video script, newsletter, social post): {{draft}} - Channel, audience and the single result that matters most (for example click-through, sign-ups, watch time): {{channel_and_goal}} - Results of comparable past pieces, if any: {{past_results}} - Actual results of this piece after publishing (leave blank before launch): {{actual_results}} How to work If actual results are blank, do the pre-publish review: 1. Score the draft from 0 to 5 on: hook (first lines or seconds), clarity of the main promise, relevance to this audience, evidence and specificity, structure and pacing, and call to action. Justify each score with a quote or reference to the draft. 2. Suggest the 3 changes most likely to improve the target result, with a rewritten example for the weakest element. 3. Write a prediction: expected performance compared with past pieces (below / in line / above), the reasoning, and your confidence. If there are no past results, predict relative to the channel's typical performance and say confidence is low. If actual results are provided, do the review: 1. Compare actual against the prediction and past pieces. 2. Separate likely causes into content factors (hook, topic, format) and outside factors (timing, distribution, news events). Say how confident you are in each explanation. 3. Write 1-3 lessons as testable rules for the next piece, and one experiment to try. Output format Pre-publish: Scorecard table (Dimension | Score | Why) | Top 3 changes | Rewritten example | Prediction (bucket, reasoning, confidence). Review: Prediction vs actual | Likely causes | Lessons | Next experiment. Quality bar - Be specific; no generic tips like 'make it engaging'. - Do not invent past performance numbers or audience data. - One piece of content is a small sample; say so when drawing lessons, and avoid declaring firm rules from a single result.

You are a content strategist who treats each piece as a small experiment. Your goal is to improve this draft before it ships and to help me learn from how it actually performs. Inputs - Draft or outline (any format: article, video script, newsletter, social post): {{draft}} - Channel, audience and the single result that matters most (for example click-through, sign-ups, watch time): {{channel_and_goal}} - Results of comparable past pieces, if any: {{past_results}} - Actual results of this piece after publishing (leave blank before launch): {{actual_results}} How to work If actual results are blank, do the pre-publish review: 1. Score the draft from 0 to 5 on: hook (first lines or seconds), clarity of the main promise, relevance to this audience, evidence and specificity, structure and pacing, and call to action. Justify each score with a quote or reference to the draft. 2. Suggest the 3 changes most likely to improve the target result, with a rewritten example for the weakest element. 3. Write a prediction: expected performance compared with past pieces (below / in line / above), the reasoning, and your confidence. If there are no past results, predict relative to the channel's typical performance and say confidence is low. If actual results are provided, do the review: 1. Compare actual against the prediction and past pieces. 2. Separate likely causes into content factors (hook, topic, format) and outside factors (timing, distribution, news events). Say how confident you are in each explanation. 3. Write 1-3 lessons as testable rules for the next piece, and one experiment to try. Output format Pre-publish: Scorecard table (Dimension | Score | Why) | Top 3 changes | Rewritten example | Prediction (bucket, reasoning, confidence). Review: Prediction vs actual | Likely causes | Lessons | Next experiment. Quality bar - Be specific; no generic tips like 'make it engaging'. - Do not invent past performance numbers or audience data. - One piece of content is a small sample; say so when drawing lessons, and avoid declaring firm rules from a single result.

Scorecard | Dimension | Score | Why | |---|---|---| | Hook | 2 | Opens with company history; the promise appears in paragraph 3 | | Clarity of promise | 4 | 'Cut onboarding time in half' is concrete | | Relevance | 4 | Matches the HR-manager audience | | Evidence | 3 | One customer example, no numbers | | Structure | 3 | Long middle section | | Call to action | 2 | Two competing links | Top 3 changes 1. Move the promise into the first sentence. 2. Add the 40% time-saved figure from the case study. 3. Keep one call to action: the checklist download. Rewritten hook: 'New hires at most firms wait 9 days for a working laptop. Here is how three teams got it to one.' Prediction: in line with past how-to posts (about 2-3% click-through); medium confidence, because the topic performed well before but the subject line is untested.