feat: add bounded human-voice review

docs/research.md

@@ -682,6 +682,24 @@ passed; its commands, source commit, payload assertions, and outcomes are
 recorded in the [release checklist](release-checklist.md). The published result
 is distinct from, rather than inferred from, the local fixture result.
 
+## Human-tone review pattern — CodeSigils/zensical-skill (2026-10-13)
+
+Reviewed the MIT-licensed
+[article-review reference](https://github.com/CodeSigils/zensical-skill/blob/2580e8089c76c4514689c80c2964523255aa200a/zensical/references/article-review.md)
+at commit `2580e80`. It is pattern evidence, not a source of Zola behavior: its
+useful boundary is an explicit, author-led human-tone pass that characterizes
+the draft's existing voice, treats formulaic or generic prose as a
+cluster-level observation, and preserves direct reference prose when fast
+retrieval is the page's purpose.
+
+**Adaptation decision (2026-10-13):** Add this boundary in newly written,
+Zola-specific language to the existing editorial-review reference. Do not copy
+Zensical text or import its generic site/publishing guidance, a de-slop-skill
+dependency, phrase bans, a fixed prose rubric, or automated checks. The change
+needs no Zola-version research and does not alter routing, fixtures, release
+validation, or the source registry; it only improves an already explicit
+article-quality review.
+
 **Distribution-gate decision (2026-09-05):** The Codex/Claude Code clean
 package-install matrix is the authoritative Phase 7 distribution proof because
 it fetches the public source and verifies the full payload in each target host.

docs/roadmap.md

@@ -714,7 +714,10 @@ commit-message check, or add a skill self-version.
    review. It evaluates evidence/citation traceability, factual qualification,
    link/source accuracy, readability, and repository-specific editorial rules.
    It does not impose a language, voice, SEO formula, rhetorical-device quota,
-   or a generic custom-shortcode catalog.
+   or a generic custom-shortcode catalog. An explicitly requested human-voice
+   pass preserves the observed voice and reports only clusters of generic or
+   performative prose; direct reference writing, load-bearing distinctions, and
+   authorial judgment remain legitimate.
 4. **Disclosure-aware content model.** Extend the content-model reference only
    when the target repository already has, or the user explicitly requests, an
    authorship or AI-assistance disclosure convention. The workflow records only

docs/vision.md

@@ -345,6 +345,12 @@ review, and run the smallest applicable Zola validation. Git commits, pushes,
 pull requests, publishing, and changes outside the authorized repository remain
 separate, explicitly authorized actions.
 
+An explicitly requested human-voice pass is a narrow part of the existing
+editorial review: it preserves the observed voice, reports clusters of generic
+or performative prose only when repository guidance permits the review, and
+keeps direct reference writing where it serves retrieval. It does not create a
+house voice, phrase ban, automatic rewrite, or publication gate.
+
 It must not inherit site-specific voice rules, mandated languages, rhetorical
 quotas, custom shortcode catalogs, author identities, SEO formulas, branch
 names, signoffs, remote repositories, or bootstrap/clone instructions from an

skills/zola/references/editorial-review.md

@@ -19,6 +19,36 @@ links whose purpose is unclear in surrounding prose. Apply a language, tone,
 voice, SEO formula, rhetorical quota, or shortcode rule only when the target
 repository documents it.
 
+## Optional human-voice pass
+
+Use this pass only when the user explicitly asks for voice or tone feedback and
+the target repository's editorial guidance permits it. First identify the
+draft's observed voice traits worth preserving, such as its register, rhythm,
+punctuation, or genuine warmth. Improve that voice; do not replace it with a
+house style.
+
+Look for clusters rather than isolated wording: unnecessary scene-setting,
+headings or transitions that announce their own significance, emphasis without
+new evidence, invented maxims, inflated moral stakes, exhaustive lists of what
+something is not, precision that does not affect the reader's decision, or
+forced all-or-nothing conclusions. Recommend a more direct statement only
+where it preserves the author's meaning, evidence, and useful distinctions.
+
+Generic documentation-template prose is a concern only when it displaces an
+author's observation, reasoning, or relevant reader context. Direct,
+conventional prose is often the better choice for reference material and fast
+retrieval. Likewise, retain a contrast, measurement, or strong judgment when
+it does factual or argumentative work. Do not treat a single phrase as proof,
+rewrite quoted or titled language, fabricate personality or experience, or
+turn this review into an automatic rewrite or publication gate.
+
+For an article, field note, narrative technical guide, or explainer, also
+consider whether a major transition leaves the reader without context. Suggest
+one or two voice-consistent orienting sentences only when a new section changes
+the reader's task, system layer, risk, or mode of work and the surrounding
+prose does not already make that connection. Do not add connective prose to a
+reference page merely to make it warmer.
+
 ## Related review workflows
 
 - [Modify/review workflow](../workflows/modify-review.md) for the required

tests/scenarios.md

@@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ remains reproducible. The scenario documents its minimal repair proposal.
 | Prompt | Expected selection result | Expected finding boundary |
 | --- | --- | --- |
 | “Review this Zola article for unsupported claims, inaccurate links, and unclear sentences; do not edit it.” | Match `zola`: explicit article-quality review in an existing Zola site. | Report concrete, evidence-based findings with severity, path, evidence, impact, remediation, and validation; do not impose a language/voice quota or invent sources. |
+| “Give this Zola field note human-voice feedback, but preserve its technical tone and do not edit it.” | Match `zola`: explicit article-quality review in an existing Zola site. | Characterize the observed voice and report clusters of generic or performative prose only when local editorial guidance permits; keep direct reference prose and load-bearing distinctions, and do not impose a house style or phrase ban. |
 
 ## Phase 3 extended debug/build scenarios