---
description: Audit dialogue for character voice differentiation, attribution clarity, and talking-head detection.
---

# /scr:dialogue-audit -- Character Dialogue Quality Audit

Audit dialogue for voice differentiation, attribution clarity, dialect consistency, and talking-head detection.

## Usage
```
/scr:dialogue-audit [N]
```

Where `N` is the scope (act, chapter, or section number depending on work type). Omit `N` to audit the entire manuscript.

## Instruction

You are a **dialogue specialist**. Your job is to ensure every character sounds like themselves, dialogue is clearly attributed, and scenes avoid talking-head syndrome.

---

### STEP 0: LOAD CONTEXT

1. Load `config.json` to determine work type and hierarchy
2. Load `CONSTRAINTS.json` -- this command is **available** for prose, script, and interactive work types. It is **hidden** from academic, poetry, speech_song, and sacred work types. If the current work type is in a hidden group, inform the writer and exit gracefully
3. Load `CHARACTERS.md` -- extract each character's **voice anchors**: vocabulary level, sentence length tendencies, verbal tics, speech patterns, dialect markers, and any other voice-defining traits
4. Load the drafted prose for scope `N` (or full manuscript if `N` is omitted)

---

### STEP 1: VOICE DIFFERENTIATION

For each character with dialogue in the scope:

<voice_check>
  Compare their actual dialogue against their voice anchor in CHARACTERS.md:
  - **Vocabulary**: Does their word choice match their established register?
  - **Sentence length**: Do their sentences match their pattern (short/clipped vs. flowing/complex)?
  - **Verbal tics**: Are their signature phrases/expressions present?
  - **Speech patterns**: Do they speak in a way that's distinguishable from other characters?

  Test: Could you identify the speaker with all dialogue tags removed? If two characters sound interchangeable, flag it.

  For each character, provide a voice consistency score:
  - STRONG: Character is immediately recognizable by dialogue alone
  - ADEQUATE: Character is mostly distinct but has moments of generic voice
  - WEAK: Character sounds interchangeable with others
</voice_check>

---

### STEP 2: ATTRIBUTION CLARITY

Scan all dialogue passages for attribution issues:

<attribution_check>
  - Flag any stretch of **more than 3 consecutive dialogue exchanges** without a dialogue tag, action beat, or internal thought to anchor the speaker
  - Flag scenes where three or more characters are speaking and attribution becomes ambiguous
  - Flag any passage where the reader would need to count backwards to determine who is speaking
  - Note where attribution is handled well (action beats woven naturally, dialogue tags invisible)
</attribution_check>

---

### STEP 3: DIALECT CONSISTENCY

For characters who use dialect, regional speech, or non-standard English:

<dialect_check>
  - Catalog their dialect markers (dropped letters, specific pronunciations, regional vocabulary)
  - Scan for **inconsistent usage**: dialect present in some scenes but absent in others without narrative reason
  - Scan for **overcorrection**: dialect so thick it becomes unreadable
  - Scan for **undercorrection**: dialect markers so light they disappear entirely
  - Note if dialect is used respectfully and consistently (not just for comic relief or othering)
</dialect_check>

---

### STEP 4: TALKING-HEAD DETECTION

Identify scenes where characters are disembodied voices:

<talking_head_check>
  Flag any passage where:
  - Characters exchange dialogue for more than **half a page** (~125 words of pure dialogue) without:
    - Physical action (gestures, movement, interaction with objects)
    - Setting interaction (noticing environment, reacting to surroundings)
    - Internal thought or emotional reaction
    - Sensory detail
  - The scene reads like a transcript rather than a story

  For each flagged passage, suggest what could be woven in:
  - What are the characters physically doing during this conversation?
  - What in the setting could they interact with?
  - What are they thinking but not saying?
</talking_head_check>

---

### OUTPUT

For each issue found, present:

| Field | Content |
|-------|---------|
| **Passage** | The relevant dialogue excerpt |
| **Characters** | Who is involved |
| **Category** | Voice Differentiation / Attribution / Dialect / Talking Head |
| **Severity** | High (reader confusion) / Medium (craft improvement) / Low (polish) |
| **Suggestion** | Specific, actionable recommendation |

Group findings by scene/chapter, then by category within each.

End with a **Dialogue Health Summary**:
- Total issues by category and severity
- Characters with strongest voice distinction
- Characters needing the most voice work
- Overall dialogue quality assessment

Save to `.manuscript/{scope}-DIALOGUE-AUDIT.md` where `{scope}` is the act/chapter identifier or `full` for the entire manuscript.

## Response Contract

Every writer-facing response must end with one to four next-command suggestions. Each suggestion must include a short explanation of what that path will do.

Use this format:

```markdown
Next commands:
- `/scr:...`: One short sentence explaining what this path will do.
- `/scr:...`: One short sentence explaining what this alternate path will do.
```

If exactly one path is clearly best, provide one suggestion. If two, three, or four useful paths exist, show them as alternatives. Do not force a linear path when the writer has a real choice.

If the writer seems unsure or no specific next command is obvious, include this default option:

```markdown
Next commands:
- `/scr:next`: Inspect the project state and choose the right next step.
```

If the command stops because a prerequisite is missing, suggest the command that fixes the prerequisite. Keep every explanation practical and writer-facing.