Public run log
Content review agent run log
Every run this agent has on record, newest first. Open a record to read the steps, where the record comes from, and what happened when something needed a person.
Workflows/content-review/review-log.md), as of Oct 17, 2026. A piece with no row never reached the agent, and the log says nothing about it. An audit run by hand can add a row for a piece published without one, marked as reviewed after the fact; a piece published against a send-back is recorded as such, on purpose. The numbers below are counted from the records shown.Oct 17, 202609:51reddit-comment 2026-10-16 #1 · SaturdayLint passed; in a separate Claude session 5 of 5 questions were answered with a quote. Reviewed after it had gone out, by an audit run by hand.SucceededPassedNo one needed for this run
Steps
- DoneLint ran the rules for a reply and passed every hard one
- DoneA separate Claude session read the standard and the draft, nothing else, and named the three weakest sentences
- DoneAll five questions answered with a quote: visible reasoning, pushback, something concrete, a conclusion, the outline test
- DoneVerdict: pass, with nothing to change
- DoneAlready published when the audit read it; the verdict is a record, not a gate
How it was handled
An audit run by hand found the piece published with no row and reviewed it after the fact. The verdict is on record; it could not stop anything.
Next step
None for this row. The weekly report counts the pieces published unreviewed; that count is the case for routing the path that skipped the review through it.
Where this record comes from
Workflows/content-review/review-log.md
Oct 17, 202609:50x-comment 2026-10-16 #1 · SaturdayLint passed; in a separate Claude session 4 of 5 questions were answered with a quote, with no quote for pushback. Reviewed after it had gone out, by an audit run by hand.SucceededPassedNo one needed for this run
Steps
- DoneLint ran the rules for a reply and passed every hard one
- DoneA separate Claude session read the standard and the draft, nothing else, and named the three weakest sentences
- Failed4 of 5 questions answered with a quote; no quote for pushback
- DoneVerdict: pass, with nothing to change
- DoneAlready published when the audit read it; the verdict is a record, not a gate
How it was handled
An audit run by hand found the piece published with no row and reviewed it after the fact. The verdict is on record; it could not stop anything.
Next step
None for this row. The weekly report counts the pieces published unreviewed; that count is the case for routing the path that skipped the review through it.
Where this record comes from
Workflows/content-review/review-log.md
Oct 17, 202609:50x-comment 2026-10-16 #2 · SaturdayLint passed; in a separate Claude session 4 of 5 questions were answered with a quote, with no quote for pushback. Reviewed after it had gone out, by an audit run by hand.SucceededPassedNo one needed for this run
Steps
- DoneLint ran the rules for a reply and passed every hard one
- DoneA separate Claude session read the standard and the draft, nothing else, and named the three weakest sentences
- Failed4 of 5 questions answered with a quote; no quote for pushback
- DoneVerdict: pass, with nothing to change
- DoneAlready published when the audit read it; the verdict is a record, not a gate
How it was handled
An audit run by hand found the piece published with no row and reviewed it after the fact. The verdict is on record; it could not stop anything.
Next step
None for this row. The weekly report counts the pieces published unreviewed; that count is the case for routing the path that skipped the review through it.
Where this record comes from
Workflows/content-review/review-log.md
Oct 17, 202609:49blog meta-new-terms-crawl-business-websites-for-ai · SaturdayLint failed on “not X but Y” staging and bold as decoration; no review session ran. Reviewed after it had gone out, by an audit run by hand.FailedSent backNeeds a person
Steps
- FailedLint stopped the piece on a hard rule: “not X but Y” staging and bold as decoration
- SkippedNo review session: lint stopped the piece first
- SkippedThe five questions were not asked: no session answered them
- FailedVerdict: send back
- DoneAlready published when the audit read it; the verdict is a record, not a gate
What went wrong
Sent back: lint: not X but Y: "This is not a story about social media. It's"; 5 bolded phrases; at most 2 (bold as decoration).
How it was handled
An audit run by hand found the piece published with no row and reviewed it after the fact. The verdict is on record; it could not stop anything.
Next step
None for this row. The weekly report counts the pieces published unreviewed; that count is the case for routing the path that skipped the review through it.
Where this record comes from
Workflows/content-review/review-log.md
Oct 16, 202618:26x-post day 3 · FridayLint passed; in a separate Claude session 4 of 5 questions were answered with a quote, with no quote for pushback. Reviewed after it had gone out, by an audit run by hand.SucceededPassedNo one needed for this run
Steps
- DoneLint ran the rules for an X post and passed every hard one
- DoneA separate Claude session read the standard and the draft, nothing else, and named the three weakest sentences
- Failed4 of 5 questions answered with a quote; no quote for pushback
- DoneVerdict: pass, with nothing to change
- DoneAlready published when the audit read it; the verdict is a record, not a gate
How it was handled
An audit run by hand found the piece published with no row and reviewed it after the fact. The verdict is on record; it could not stop anything.
Next step
None for this row. The weekly report counts the pieces published unreviewed; that count is the case for routing the path that skipped the review through it.
Where this record comes from
Workflows/content-review/review-log.md
Oct 16, 202618:26blog ai-mentions-your-brand-but-cites-someone-else · FridayLint failed on bold as decoration; no review session ran. Reviewed after it had gone out, by an audit run by hand.FailedSent backNeeds a person
Steps
- FailedLint stopped the piece on a hard rule: bold as decoration
- SkippedNo review session: lint stopped the piece first
- SkippedThe five questions were not asked: no session answered them
- FailedVerdict: send back
- DoneAlready published when the audit read it; the verdict is a record, not a gate
What went wrong
Sent back: lint: 5 bolded phrases; at most 2 (bold as decoration).
How it was handled
An audit run by hand found the piece published with no row and reviewed it after the fact. The verdict is on record; it could not stop anything.
Next step
None for this row. The weekly report counts the pieces published unreviewed; that count is the case for routing the path that skipped the review through it.
Where this record comes from
Workflows/content-review/review-log.md
Oct 16, 202618:24x-comment 2026-10-15 #5 · FridayLint passed; in a separate Claude session 5 of 5 questions were answered with a quote. Reviewed after it had gone out, by an audit run by hand.SucceededPassedNo one needed for this run
Steps
- DoneLint ran the rules for a reply and passed every hard one
- DoneA separate Claude session read the standard and the draft, nothing else, and named the three weakest sentences
- DoneAll five questions answered with a quote: visible reasoning, pushback, something concrete, a conclusion, the outline test
- DoneVerdict: pass, with nothing to change
- DoneAlready published when the audit read it; the verdict is a record, not a gate
How it was handled
An audit run by hand found the piece published with no row and reviewed it after the fact. The verdict is on record; it could not stop anything.
Next step
None for this row. The weekly report counts the pieces published unreviewed; that count is the case for routing the path that skipped the review through it.
Where this record comes from
Workflows/content-review/review-log.md
Oct 16, 202618:23x-comment 2026-10-15 #4 · FridayLint passed; in a separate Claude session 4 of 5 questions were answered with a quote, with no quote for pushback. Reviewed after it had gone out, by an audit run by hand.SucceededPassedNo one needed for this run
Steps
- DoneLint ran the rules for a reply and passed every hard one
- DoneA separate Claude session read the standard and the draft, nothing else, and named the three weakest sentences
- Failed4 of 5 questions answered with a quote; no quote for pushback
- DoneVerdict: pass, with nothing to change
- DoneAlready published when the audit read it; the verdict is a record, not a gate
How it was handled
An audit run by hand found the piece published with no row and reviewed it after the fact. The verdict is on record; it could not stop anything.
Next step
None for this row. The weekly report counts the pieces published unreviewed; that count is the case for routing the path that skipped the review through it.
Where this record comes from
Workflows/content-review/review-log.md
Oct 16, 202618:22x-comment 2026-10-15 #3 · FridayLint passed; in a separate Claude session 5 of 5 questions were answered with a quote. Reviewed after it had gone out, by an audit run by hand.SucceededPassedNo one needed for this run
Steps
- DoneLint ran the rules for a reply and passed every hard one
- DoneA separate Claude session read the standard and the draft, nothing else, and named the three weakest sentences
- DoneAll five questions answered with a quote: visible reasoning, pushback, something concrete, a conclusion, the outline test
- DoneVerdict: pass, with nothing to change
- DoneAlready published when the audit read it; the verdict is a record, not a gate
How it was handled
An audit run by hand found the piece published with no row and reviewed it after the fact. The verdict is on record; it could not stop anything.
Next step
None for this row. The weekly report counts the pieces published unreviewed; that count is the case for routing the path that skipped the review through it.
Where this record comes from
Workflows/content-review/review-log.md
Oct 16, 202618:20x-comment 2026-10-15 #2 · FridayLint passed; in a separate Claude session 5 of 5 questions were answered with a quote. Reviewed after it had gone out, by an audit run by hand.SucceededPassedNo one needed for this run
Steps
- DoneLint ran the rules for a reply and passed every hard one
- DoneA separate Claude session read the standard and the draft, nothing else, and named the three weakest sentences
- DoneAll five questions answered with a quote: visible reasoning, pushback, something concrete, a conclusion, the outline test
- DoneVerdict: pass, with nothing to change
- DoneAlready published when the audit read it; the verdict is a record, not a gate
How it was handled
An audit run by hand found the piece published with no row and reviewed it after the fact. The verdict is on record; it could not stop anything.
Next step
None for this row. The weekly report counts the pieces published unreviewed; that count is the case for routing the path that skipped the review through it.
Where this record comes from
Workflows/content-review/review-log.md
Oct 16, 202618:19x-comment 2026-10-15 #1 · FridayLint passed; in a separate Claude session 5 of 5 questions were answered with a quote. Reviewed after it had gone out, by an audit run by hand.SucceededPassedNo one needed for this run
Steps
- DoneLint ran the rules for a reply and passed every hard one
- DoneA separate Claude session read the standard and the draft, nothing else, and named the three weakest sentences
- DoneAll five questions answered with a quote: visible reasoning, pushback, something concrete, a conclusion, the outline test
- DoneVerdict: pass, with nothing to change
- DoneAlready published when the audit read it; the verdict is a record, not a gate
How it was handled
An audit run by hand found the piece published with no row and reviewed it after the fact. The verdict is on record; it could not stop anything.
Next step
None for this row. The weekly report counts the pieces published unreviewed; that count is the case for routing the path that skipped the review through it.
Where this record comes from
Workflows/content-review/review-log.md
Oct 16, 202618:18blog chatgpt-now-controls-your-chrome-tabs · FridayLint failed on bold as decoration; no review session ran. Reviewed after it had gone out, by an audit run by hand.FailedSent backNeeds a person
Steps
- FailedLint stopped the piece on a hard rule: bold as decoration
- SkippedNo review session: lint stopped the piece first
- SkippedThe five questions were not asked: no session answered them
- FailedVerdict: send back
- DoneAlready published when the audit read it; the verdict is a record, not a gate
What went wrong
Sent back: lint: 7 bolded phrases; at most 2 (bold as decoration).
How it was handled
An audit run by hand found the piece published with no row and reviewed it after the fact. The verdict is on record; it could not stop anything.
Next step
None for this row. The weekly report counts the pieces published unreviewed; that count is the case for routing the path that skipped the review through it.
Where this record comes from
Workflows/content-review/review-log.md
No runs match these filters
There are no runs of the Content review agent with that status in that date range. Try a wider range or another status.
The task finished. The record says which: a post published, or a draft written.
The run stopped. The record says where, why, and what happens next.
The run is waiting on a person: a sign-in, a challenge to solve, or a closing to rewrite.
“Succeeded” means the task in the record finished, and the record says which: a post published, or a draft written. It does not measure reach, leads or revenue. Records never include private messages or personal details of people outside the team. Times are US Eastern, from the commit that wrote the record.