GIVE FEEDBACK THE WRITER CAN ACT ON.
You send the draft to the client.
Two days later, the problem shows up. A key detail is missing. The message doesn’t answer the client’s question. Now you’re fixing work that should have been caught before it went out.
Nobody was lazy. Nobody was trying to cause a problem.
But “take a look” never said what to look for. And “looks good” never said what had actually been checked.
The same thing happens when you ask AI to review a draft. You get a confident answer, a few vague suggestions, and no clear way to tell whether the important things are right.
LET’S FIX THAT IN 10 MINUTES.
STEP 1 — TELL THE REVIEWER WHAT THE WORK IS FOR
🔴🟡🟢 COPY THIS INTO CHATGPT OR YOUR AI TOOL:
Act as my review coordinator.
Help me review a piece of work.
Before reviewing the draft, identify:
Who the work is for.
What the work needs to achieve.
What it must include.
What would make it fail, even if it sounds well written.
For each item, distinguish what the original request explicitly says from what you are assuming..
Rules:
Do not invent requirements.
If something cannot be confirmed, mark it [NEEDS CONFIRMATION].
Do not rewrite the draft yet.
First, tell me what a successful result needs to do.
Original request:
[Paste the request.]
Draft:
[Paste the draft]
Read the result. If AI has guessed the audience, goal, or requirements, correct those guesses before moving on.
You’re setting the standard for the review. You’re not asking AI to invent one.
STEP 2 — CHECK THE DRAFT AND WRITE THE FEEDBACK
🔴🟡🟢 COPY THIS PROMPT INTO THE SAME CHAT:
Act as my draft reviewer.
Using the confirmed requirements above, review the draft.
Identify:
What works: What already meets the requirements, with specifics.
What needs to change: Where the draft misses a requirement, creates confusion, or leaves out something important.
Why it matters: The effect of each problem on the reader or the result.
Next step: What the writer should do about each one.
End with one question the writer needs to answer before the work can be approved.
Rules:
Do not invent missing facts.
If something depends on information you cannot verify, mark it [NEEDS CONFIRMATION].
Do not rewrite the draft yet.
Keep the feedback direct, specific, and respectful.
STEP 3 — CHECK THE FEEDBACK BEFORE YOU SEND IT
Read the results against the original request.
Make sure each point says what to change and why. Remove anything based on a guess.
AI can help you organize feedback. You are still responsible for deciding whether it is correct.
WATCH FOR THIS PHRASE:
“Looks good to me.”
It sounds reassuring.
But what did the reviewer check?
Did the draft meet the original request?
Were the facts checked?
Was anything missing?
If you can’t answer those questions, you don’t yet have a useful review.
SEND IT
1. Send the feedback to the writer, or use it to revise your own draft.
2. Ask the writer to answer the final question and address the listed changes.
3. Save the prompt sequence as Review Check v1 so you can use it again.
Working alone? Use AI as your second reviewer.
Give it the original request and your draft, then challenge its findings against what you know about the work.
HOW DID IT GO?
Did you use the workflow?
WHAT YOU JUST DID
You replaced an open-ended request for feedback with a review that has a purpose, specific findings, and clear next steps.
AI helped organize the findings.
You still decided which ones were correct.
Before you grab today’s Field Kit:
Tell us about your role and what you’re working on so we can build workflows around the problems you’re actually dealing with.
The feedback was specific.
The writer fixed the easy comments and missed the one that mattered.
That’s the next problem.
Thursday, we’ll look at why clear feedback can still leave the biggest problem in place.
TODAY’S FIELD KIT (REVIEW CHECK)
Inside the kit:
The Review Check prompt sequence
A feedback template with space for the change, the reason, and the next step
A “Can they act on this?” checklist
This kit lives in our learning community. Sign up free to get access.
