Update Draft Skill

Take the original article + all the audit recommendations and produce one consolidated updated draft. The goal is surgical update, not rewrite.

Input

/update-draft <slug>

Reads:

• content-pipeline/updates/1-extracted/{slug}.md (original article)
• content-pipeline/updates/0-guidance/{slug}.md (priorities)
• content-pipeline/updates/2-update-claims/{slug}.md (if exists)
• content-pipeline/updates/3-update-product-mentions/{slug}.md (if exists)
• content-pipeline/updates/4-update-topic-gaps/{slug}.md (if exists)
• content-pipeline/0-context/{slug}.md (if user provided context)
• brand-config.md
• examples/ (2 articles for voice — same as /draft)
• .claude/skills/draft/references/voice-guide.md

Process

1. Read the original article body from the extract.

2. Read all available audits. Each audit gives you a queue of specific changes.

3. Read 2 articles from examples/ to anchor voice — voice should match the original article AND the brand examples.

4. Apply changes in this order, preserving original prose where untouched:

   Step A — Apply claim updates. For each replacement in 2-update-claims:

   • Find the original sentence in the body
   • Replace with the proposed rewrite (which already has the new value + new source link)
   • Don't touch surrounding prose

   Step B — Apply product mention additions. For each addition in 3-update-product-mentions:

   • Find the proposed insertion section
   • Insert the suggested text using the appropriate annotation (walkthrough / inline / tip box)
   • Match the surrounding paragraph's rhythm

   Step C — Apply topic gap additions. For each gap in 4-update-topic-gaps:

   • Insert the proposed H2 at the specified location
   • Draft the section using the audit's key points + evidence
   • Apply BLUF + voice rules from voice-guide.md
   • Match existing section length conventions (don't insert a 1500-word monster between two 300-word sections)

   Step D — Apply removals. If 4-update-topic-gaps flagged sections for removal AND the user's context confirms removal is desired, cut them. Otherwise leave alone — removal is destructive and benefits from explicit user confirmation.

   Step E — Refresh stale "last updated" date. If the article had a date marker, update it.

5. Self-edit pass. Read the consolidated article end-to-end. Check:

   • Voice is consistent (no jarring tone shifts where audits inserted new content)
   • Transitions still flow (newly inserted sections need transitions in/out)
   • No duplicate content (an updated claim might collide with a new section that also discusses that data)
   • Forbidden phrases (from brand-config.md) absent from inserted content

6. Save to content-pipeline/updates/7-updated-draft/{slug}.md. Include a ## Editor's notes section at the bottom listing:

   • Each change applied (one line each)
   • Each audit recommendation that was NOT applied and why
   • Anything flagged for human review

   In autonomous mode (BLOG_AGENT_AUTONOMOUS=1), additionally write a copy of the editor's notes to content-pipeline/audit/auto-edit-notes/{slug}.md so they're available for async post-publish spot-checks even after format-for-publish strips them from the published body.

Output

content-pipeline/updates/7-updated-draft/{slug}.md

The full updated article with editor's notes at the bottom.

Quality checklist

• Every queued claim replacement was applied
• Every "high priority" product mention addition was applied
• Every "high priority" topic gap section was added
• Voice in inserted content matches original article voice
• Newly inserted sections have BLUF openers and transitions
• Editor's notes at the bottom list every change made
• No "wholesale rewrites" of sections that weren't flagged

What NOT to do

• Don't refactor the article. The user asked for an update, not a rewrite. Existing prose stays unless an audit says to change it.
• Don't add new claims. If audits didn't surface a new stat, don't sneak one in.
• Don't change section ordering unless an audit recommends it.
• Don't change the H1 / title unless explicitly requested in user context.

When the audits conflict

Rare, but happens — e.g., topic-gaps recommends removing a section that product-mentions just added a product to. Resolve by:

• Checking which audit had higher priority in the guidance file
• Defaulting to keeping content rather than removing
• Noting the conflict in editor's notes for the human to decide