---
name: editorial-workflow
description: Use when researching, editing, reviewing, or preparing website articles for publication.
license: MIT
metadata:
  hermes:
    tags: [editorial, research, accessibility, publishing]
---

# Editorial workflow

## Scope

Use this workflow for website articles and their supporting assets. Follow the user's language and project conventions. A topic or source is not a publication authorization. Ask only for information that is necessary and cannot be established from available sources.

## Research and writing

1. Read the relevant existing content, project instructions, and source material before editing. Establish the intended audience and scope. For repository-based claims, inspect the relevant files and record the reviewed revision where possible.
2. Prefer primary sources. Distinguish documented features, available tests, and tests actually run. Do not invent facts, quotes, benchmarks, experiences, or results. Label uncertainty, historical status, and untested commands clearly.
3. Match the publication's voice and design without copying protected artwork. Explain the practical purpose first and include relevant limitations. For multilingual projects, prepare complete requested language versions and check corresponding navigation and language links.
4. Use only media with suitable rights. Record provenance, applicable license or generation method, and any attribution requirements in the project's designated records. Consider privacy before using external services.

## Local preparation and review

1. Inspect build scripts and their dependencies before execution, including import-time side effects and files they may overwrite. Preserve existing work and use a separate output location when appropriate. Do not assume an old build represents the current site.
2. Check changed pages, assets, links, anchors, language navigation, and responsive layout. In a browser, inspect desktop and mobile views, image loading, contrast, keyboard focus, and code blocks. Serve locally over HTTP where browser security rules make file URLs unreliable.
3. Report precisely what was reviewed or executed and what remains untested. Raise unresolved factual, rights, accessibility, or editorial issues before publication.

## Publication boundary

- Finish and review locally first. Explicit approval of text alone is not approval to upload, overwrite, delete, change routing, or modify hosting configuration. Obtain approval for the exact target and scope of each live change.
- Before an approved deployment, verify the current target and affected live state; prepare and check a protected backup and a rollback path. Do not expose backups or credentials. Use only an approved secure transfer method; do not request or handle passwords in chat.
- Deploy only the approved files. Afterward, verify the exact deployed files and relevant live pages, navigation, and redirects. Report any failures and use the agreed rollback procedure when necessary.

## Optional delegation

Delegate independent research or isolated reviews only when useful. Give each reviewer a bounded task and prohibit remote writes, publication, and access to secrets. These instructions are not a technical sandbox. Independently check sources, findings, and claimed tests; keep approval and deployment coordination with the main agent.