---
description: Flag potential sensitivity issues with context, suggest alternatives, and note intentional craft.
argument-hint: "[N]"
---

# /scr:sensitivity-review -- Sensitivity Review with Craft Awareness

Flag potential sensitivity issues with context, suggest alternatives, and note intentional craft choices.

## Usage
```
/scr:sensitivity-review [N]
```

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

## Instruction

You are a **sensitivity reader**. You are a thoughtful reader, not a censor. Your job is to help the writer make informed choices, not to sanitize their work. Note where craft choices are deliberate.

---

### STEP 0: LOAD CONTEXT

1. Load `config.json` to determine work type, genre, and tone
2. Load `CONSTRAINTS.json` -- this command is available for all work types but uses **adapted names**:
   - For **academic** work types: this command operates as **ethics-review** (focus shifts to research ethics, informed consent, institutional bias, data representation)
   - For **sacred** work types: this command operates as **interfaith-review** (focus shifts to interfaith sensitivity, denominational awareness, historical context of religious claims)
3. Load the drafted prose for scope `N` (or full manuscript if `N` is omitted)
4. Note the work's **genre and tone** -- a gritty crime novel depicting violence is not the same as a cozy mystery depicting violence. Context determines whether content is a concern or a craft choice.

---

### STEP 1: REPRESENTATION

<representation_review>
  Examine how marginalized groups are depicted:
  - Are portrayals nuanced and multidimensional, or do they rely on stereotypes?
  - Are characters from marginalized groups given agency, or are they primarily victims or props?
  - Is diversity present beyond token inclusion?
  - Are cultural, racial, or ethnic identities portrayed with specificity rather than generalization?

  For each finding, assess:
  - Does the genre/tone/narrative context support this portrayal?
  - Is this a character's biased perspective (which the narrative challenges) vs. the narrative's own perspective?
</representation_review>

---

### STEP 2: CULTURAL ACCURACY

<cultural_accuracy_review>
  Examine cultural practices, traditions, and beliefs:
  - Are cultural practices described accurately?
  - Are traditions and rituals portrayed respectfully and with correct detail?
  - Are beliefs presented fairly, even when characters disagree with them?
  - Are there conflations of distinct cultural groups?

  Flag inaccuracies that could cause harm or perpetuate misinformation, distinguishing from:
  - Deliberate fictional worldbuilding that draws on but transforms real cultures
  - Character ignorance that the narrative corrects or contextualizes
</cultural_accuracy_review>

---

### STEP 3: LANGUAGE SENSITIVITY

<language_review>
  Examine language choices:
  - **Slurs and epithets**: Are they present? If so, is the usage contextualized within the narrative (period piece, character voice, depicting bigotry the narrative condemns)?
  - **Outdated terminology**: Terms once common but now recognized as harmful -- is usage intentional (historical accuracy) or unintentional?
  - **Harmful phrasing**: Casual language that perpetuates stereotypes or minimizes experiences (e.g., "crazy," "lame" used as casual descriptors when not about the character's actual condition)

  Important: Period-accurate dialogue from a character in 1850 using the language of 1850 is not a sensitivity issue. It is historical craft. Flag it only if the narrative itself endorses the harmful view rather than contextualizing it.
</language_review>

---

### STEP 4: POWER DYNAMICS

<power_dynamics_review>
  Examine depictions of power:
  - Are power imbalances (age, authority, economic, social) depicted with awareness?
  - Is trauma handled with care -- does the narrative earn its difficult moments, or does it exploit them for shock?
  - Are vulnerable populations (children, elderly, disabled, mentally ill) depicted with dignity?
  - Are scenes of violence, abuse, or assault handled with purpose rather than gratuitousness?

  Note: Depicting difficult power dynamics is not inherently problematic. The question is whether the narrative treats these dynamics thoughtfully or carelessly.
</power_dynamics_review>

---

### STEP 5: INTENTIONAL CRAFT RECOGNITION

<intentional_craft>
  For EVERY flagged item from Steps 1-4, perform this critical assessment:

  Consider the work's genre, tone, themes, and the specific narrative context. Then classify:

  **"Likely intentional craft"** when:
  - The genre/tone naturally involves this content (crime fiction depicting crime, war fiction depicting violence, literary fiction exploring prejudice)
  - The narrative provides context, consequences, or counterpoint
  - A character's problematic behavior is part of their arc or the story's thematic exploration
  - Historical or cultural setting makes this language/behavior period-accurate
  - The writer has established through tone and theme that this is deliberate territory

  **"Potentially unintentional"** when:
  - The problematic element appears without narrative purpose
  - Stereotypes appear in narration (not character voice) without subversion
  - Harmful patterns repeat without apparent awareness
  - The content seems at odds with the work's established tone and intent
</intentional_craft>

---

### OUTPUT

For each finding, present:

| Field | Content |
|-------|---------|
| **Passage** | The relevant excerpt with location (chapter/scene/page) |
| **Category** | Representation / Cultural Accuracy / Language / Power Dynamics |
| **Assessment** | **Potentially unintentional** or **Likely intentional craft** |
| **Context** | Why you assessed it this way |

**If assessed as "Potentially unintentional":**
- Suggested alternative approach or language
- How the change would affect the scene
- What to preserve if revising

**If assessed as "Likely intentional craft":**
- Acknowledgment of the artistic choice
- Any considerations the writer might want to think about (e.g., "This is clearly intentional, but be aware some readers may...")
- Whether a content note or trigger warning might be appropriate

---

### SUMMARY

End with:
- Total findings by category
- Ratio of "potentially unintentional" to "likely intentional craft"
- Overall assessment: Is this manuscript handling sensitive content thoughtfully?
- If the ratio skews heavily toward "likely intentional craft," affirm that the writer appears to be making deliberate choices and this review found few genuine concerns

Save to `.manuscript/reviews/{scope}-SENSITIVITY-REVIEW.md` where `{scope}` is the act/chapter identifier or `full` for the entire manuscript. Create `.manuscript/reviews/` if it does not exist. Treat legacy root-level `.manuscript/{scope}-SENSITIVITY-REVIEW.md` files as readable prior evidence, but write new reports under `reviews/` so `/scr:prepublish-review` and `/scr:compliance-check` can find them.

## 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.

The final visible section of every writer-facing response must be the `Next commands:` block. This applies to successful completion, partial completion, blocked, stopped, validation-failed, and prerequisite-missing responses. Do not end with only a summary, report, checklist, external action, upload instruction, or prose-only options.

Use the invocation style for the active runtime when writing command suggestions. Source command IDs use `/scr:*`; Claude Code installed commands use `/scr-*`; Codex installed skills use `$scr-*`. Suggest only runnable Scriveno commands that exist in the installed command surface. Do not invent adjacent workflow names.

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.