How to Write a Good Check
Learn how to write clear, effective review checks that produce reliable results.
A good check is a clear instruction that tells SchemeFlow Review what to look for in the document text. Review works best when the check is specific, observable, and within what the tool can actually evaluate.
What SchemeFlow Review is good at
Use Review for checks like:
- Consistency (terms, assumptions, units, repeated facts)
- Copy/paste contamination (wrong client/site/authority referenced elsewhere)
- Completeness (placeholders, missing appendices, unresolved “shall/will/must”)
- Spelling/grammar and tone
- Numbering & references (figures/tables/appendices/TOC)
- Standard disclaimers and predetermined text
What not to use Review for
Avoid checks that require:
- Project reality outside the document (e.g., “is the project number correct?”)
- Visual review (maps, figures, diagrams, charts, images)
- Formatting/branding (fonts, colours, margins, PDF layout)
The 3 C’s of great checks
Clarity
Do
- Use one clear goal per check.
- Mention what to scan for (e.g., “client name spelling”, “table numbering sequence”).
Don’t
- Bundle multiple unrelated checks into one instruction.
Context
Make sure the information you’re asking it to verify is in the document.
If needed, specify where to look (e.g., “Executive Summary and Conclusions”, “Tables in Chapter 7”).
Constraints
Add guardrails so the AI focuses only on what it can reliably assess and avoids flagging false issues.
Constraints are especially important for:
- Preventing assumptions
- Avoiding over-interpretation
- Limiting checks to observable text evidence
Examples of useful constraints
- “Limit the review to [specific sections].”
(e.g. “Executive Summary and Conclusions only.”)
- “Ignore missing section numbers if they are not included in the provided text.”
(Common when working with partial extracts.)
- “Check captions and in-text references only.”
(The tool does not assess figures, tables, or visual content.)
Copy/paste check template
Use this format for consistent, high-quality checks:
[Check Type] – [What to check]
Instruction: Check for [specific issue] across [scope/sections].
Pass/Fail definition: Flag only when [observable condition].
Constraints: Do not flag [things to ignore] / do not review [excluded content].
Examples (good patterns)
- Consistency Check – Terminology
Check for inconsistent terminology or conflicting assumptions across the document (e.g., drainage features, transport modes, units).
- Completeness Check – Placeholders
Identify any placeholder text, “TODO” notes, or user comments that have not been removed.
- Numbering & References Check – Figures
Check figure numbering is sequential and references in text match the captions. Do not review figure images—only captions and references.
Common mistakes (and fixes)
- Too vague: “Check everything is correct.”
Fix: Specify what “correct” means (e.g., “consistency of client name spelling throughout”).
- Not in the document: “Check the project location is correct.”
Fix: “Check the project location is described consistently throughout the document.”
- Asking for visual review: “Review the maps/diagrams.”
Fix: “Check the text references to maps/figures are consistent and present.”
Quick checklist before saving a check
- Is this one check (not five combined)?
- Is the information in the document text?
- Did I specify scope (whole doc vs specific sections)?
- Did I include constraints to reduce false positives?
Further Information
Last updated on January 13, 2026