---
name: how-to-grade-an-article-using-jennifer
description: "Write clear steps for a draft review. Use this when the team needs to check a Jennifer grade."
category: Gaps & Tasks to Create
stage: —
definitive_article: "GAP — to be written"
status: gap
---

# Write or Repair the Jennifer Review Guide

A score can help a writer find weak parts of a draft. This task helps you write a guide to the review tool called Jennifer. Start with the real rules and a saved review. Finish with clear steps for checking and fixing the draft.

**The path:** Find the main guide → document the real method → check and link the result.

**Use this when:** the library needs a complete, current guide for this topic; this task writes or repairs that guide rather than silently running its client operation.

## Inputs

- The exact task, intended reader, useful result and existing pages that may already teach it.
- Current [definitive-article instructions](https://local-service-spotlight.github.io/task-library/?task=create-or-update-a-definitive-article#task-create-or-update-a-definitive-article) and [article guidelines](https://localservicespotlight.com/article-guidelines/).
- A real source run with dated evidence, or a clear list of the evidence still missing.
- The actual Jennifer tool or prompt, rubric version, allowed inputs and a saved grade report.
- The reviewed draft revision, cited source material and the editorial rules that apply to its release.

## First-run prompt

> Find the current main guide for this topic. Use the real source run and current rules to repair it or prepare the missing recipe. Explain the value and first step simply, include proof and visuals, and show what can be completed now and what exact evidence remains.

## Steps

1. Search the owned site, Task Library and maintained source files for an existing main guide. Record the actual URL, title, role and current content. Repair a suitable canonical guide before creating a competing page; the old GAP field is a backlog claim, not proof that no guide exists.
2. Define the reader, starting condition, necessary inputs and measurable finish. Use a short grade-5 opening that explains business value and the first action. Expand unfamiliar terms and link to the owned teaching guide; use vendor documents to substantiate product behavior.
3. Read the real execution record and current source method. Separate observed steps, teaching examples and unresolved decisions. If a live run is needed, scope it explicitly through the operational task; writing this guide does not itself grant new account, publishing or spending authority.
4. Identify the real Jennifer system and its version. Record the required draft, source and context inputs and how they are submitted. Do not invent categories, weights or a passing grade to fill missing documentation.
5. Show the current rubric’s threshold and explain its scope. Resolve conflicts with maintained article rules before release; a numerical grade cannot override factual accuracy, meaningful visuals, privacy, attribution or a useful reader result.
6. Demonstrate a report that locates each issue in the exact draft, cites its evidence and proposes a specific fix. Distinguish a rubric result from a reviewer’s judgment and mark unsupported or inconsistent scores UNKNOWN.
7. Document one bounded fix-and-recheck cycle using the revised source. Preserve earlier reports and stop repetitive regrading when missing evidence or a rubric conflict is the actual dependency. Do not add irrelevant links or testimonials just to meet a quota, and do not make passing a grade automatic permission to publish.
8. Write the complete recipe, including exceptions, measured QA and the next owner. Put a meaningful diagram, real image or suitable playable video in the first desktop and phone screen. Add a lower Content Factory context diagram with the actual upstream and downstream tasks; every link must point to a verified destination.
9. Review the exact source revision against the maintained article rules. Check the meaning and legibility of the real rendered visual at 1280×800 and 390×844, with scripts on and off where required. A grade number, empty colored box or keyword quota cannot substitute for useful instructions and proof.
10. Use the site’s actual supported editor or builder and preserve its existing metadata, content and media. Save and read back the source. Publish when already authorized; otherwise save the concrete draft and the precise pending decision. For a published result, check the normal public URL, expected text, links and both first screens rather than relying only on a preview or cache-busting URL.
11. Write the actual meta article with the same execution ID and evidence. Update the canonical mapping and related task links only after verifying the right live destination. Change a status only when its stated evidence requirements pass; a published page alone does not close runtime or certification gaps.

## Definition of done (QA checklist)

- [ ] An existing-guide search and canonical choice are recorded, with no accidental duplicate hub.
- [ ] The opening names reader value and the first action in grade-5 language.
- [ ] The actual rubric/version, threshold and inputs are sourced.
- [ ] Findings point to the exact draft and supporting evidence.
- [ ] A recheck is tied to changed text; grade, editorial acceptance and publication are distinct.
- [ ] The recipe has actual inputs, steps, measured QA and next handoff; meaningful first-screen and lower context visuals were reviewed.
- [ ] Draft, saved, published, independently reviewed and actually executed states have separate evidence.
- [ ] The real meta record and any verified canonical mapping use stable task and execution IDs.

## Example(s)

**Fictional teaching example — no client result or completed run.** A teaching report flags an unsupported “best in town” claim. The writer removes it and asks for real proof. No A grade or successful Jennifer run is asserted without an actual tool result.

## Handoff and Content Factory context

Pass the checked guide, source revision, real meta record and open evidence list to [Grade an Article Using Jennifer](https://local-service-spotlight.github.io/task-library/?task=grade-article-using-jennifer#task-grade-article-using-jennifer). Make the Task Library point to the verified canonical destination after its publication and review conditions pass.

This documentation job uses Process to turn real source work into a reusable recipe and Post to save and check its release. In the [Content Factory](https://blitzmetrics.com/content-factory/), later real runs supply new meta articles that improve this same recipe. Catalog neighbors are suggestions, not proven prerequisites.

## When this runs

Run when a verified gap or source change requires a guide update. Reuse the same execution ID for revisions of that update; another client run has its own evidence and is not created by this authoring task.

## First-run setup and continuity

Use the files and accounts this task actually needs. A skill is a written recipe; the [AI worker](https://blitzmetrics.com/build-agents/) needs suitable tools and access to follow it. This file does not install an app, connect an account or start a timer. Follow the [setup guide](https://localservicespotlight.com/install/) for the chosen app. Carry out work already covered by the user's instructions; ask only for an exact missing item or a new action outside that scope.

Save the source, current state, checked result and next owner in the project files. Check that record before retrying or handing work to another person. Configure a repeat only when requested, with its time zone, actual runtime and first successful firing. An app or model name does not prove persistence, memory or a schedule.

Keep every agent media check muted with volume zero before playback. If that cannot be verified, use captions, metadata or still frames and record the limit. Do not play sound through the user's speakers without their current request.

## Write up the real run

For each real attempt, [write the meta article](https://blitzmetrics.com/meta-article-prompt/): its task and source revision, starting point, work done, evidence, measured result, gaps and next handoff. Save one execution ID across retries and edits. Partial, blocked and failed work also gets a record. A saved draft satisfies writing while any public release is pending. Writing does not grant publication authority.

A teaching example is not a real execution. Do not count it, a repeated check or a revision as another run. The [recipe and meta-article guide](https://localservicespotlight.com/meta-articles/) explains the link between reusable instructions and actual work.


<!-- factory-layer:start -->

## Factory chain (do not treat this as isolated)

- **Phase:** —
- **Importance:** 5/5 `●●●●●` — frequency 5, revenue 4, gating 4 (runs every factory cycle or weekly; creates the asset ads amplify; gates a phase)
- **Suggested previous station:** —
- **Suggested next station:** —
These stations are generated neighbors, not verified prerequisites or handoffs. Follow the task’s actual Inputs and Handoff sections.
- **Handoff:** Save this task’s actual output, source, date and checks where the receiving owner can read them. Follow the Inputs and Handoff sections for its next step.

## Model routing (same factory, any engine)

- **This task's lane:** `judgment` — Frontier judgment: honest scoring, entity disambiguation, the subject's voice. Claude, ChatGPT, or Grok — pick the one you have.
- **Single-engine path:** Use the capable AI app you already have. Check its required tools and access before starting. Pass the actual result and proof to the next task.
- **Optional multi-engine:** A tested local model may draft; a stronger model may review facts and voice. Use supported tools for approved actions. Pick models from observed quality and cost; a model name does not prove it can run this task.
- **Never** store the working state in one vendor's memory. Files in the Content Library are the bridge.

<!-- factory-layer:end -->
## Definitive article & links

- Exact task: [Write or Repair the Jennifer Review Guide](https://local-service-spotlight.github.io/task-library/?task=how-to-grade-an-article-using-jennifer#task-how-to-grade-an-article-using-jennifer)
- [Definitive article guide](https://blitzmetrics.com/definitive-article-guide/) — reusable recipe standards.
- [Meta article prompt](https://blitzmetrics.com/meta-article-prompt/) — record the actual work.
- [Content Factory](https://blitzmetrics.com/content-factory/) — review before posting.
- [Article guidelines](https://localservicespotlight.com/article-guidelines/) — the maintained release rules.

## Review and evidence still needed

The original contributor state is preserved. Instruction review, article certification, account access and completed work are separate states.

- Needs the verified current Jennifer system, conflict-resolved rubric and a real input/report/revision record; no score is assumed.
- The contributor GAP state remains until the actual canonical guide, required review and evidence are verified. These improved writing instructions alone do not close the gap.