SchemeFlow Help

How to Write a Good Review Prompt ​

A good review prompt tells SchemeFlow what to look for in the document, how to decide whether something is an issue, and how to report the issue back to you.

Reviews work best when the prompt is specific, observable, and limited to information the review can actually evaluate.

What reviews are good at ​

Use reviews for prompts that assess:

  • Consistency: terms, assumptions, units, client names, site names, and repeated facts.
  • Copy/paste contamination: references to the wrong client, site, authority, or project.
  • Completeness: placeholders, missing appendices, unresolved comments, or draft wording.
  • Spelling, grammar, and tone: unclear sentences, inconsistent tense, or inappropriate phrasing.
  • Numbering and references: figure, table, appendix, heading, and cross-reference issues.
  • Standard text: missing disclaimers, required limitations, and predetermined wording.

What not to use reviews for ​

Avoid prompts that require:

  • Project reality outside the document, such as confirming whether the project number or site boundary is correct.
  • Visual review, such as judging maps, figures, diagrams, charts, or images.
  • Formatting and branding, such as fonts, colors, margins, or final PDF layout.

The 3 C's of great review prompts ​

Clarity ​

State the job plainly. A review should have a clear purpose, such as checking terminology consistency, finding unresolved placeholders, or reviewing figure references.

Avoid broad prompts like "check everything is correct". They produce noisy results because "correct" is not defined.

Context ​

Tell the review where to look and what source of truth to use.

Examples:

  • "Review the Executive Summary and Conclusions only."
  • "Use the project name shown on the title page as the source of truth."
  • "Check figure captions and in-text references throughout the whole document."

Constraints ​

Add guardrails so the review only flags issues it can support with document evidence.

Useful constraints:

  • "Only flag issues that are visible in the document text."
  • "Do not assume missing information is wrong unless the document contains conflicting evidence."
  • "Do not review figure images, map visuals, or chart content. Review captions and text references only."
  • "Group related findings rather than repeating the same issue for every occurrence."

Copy/paste prompt template ​

Use this structure when creating a review:

text
Review this document for [review goal].

Scope:
- Review [sections / whole document].
- Use [source of truth] when checking consistency.

Flag issues where:
- [Observable condition 1]
- [Observable condition 2]

Ignore:
- [Things that should not be flagged]
- Visual formatting, figure images, maps, and charts unless the text references are inconsistent.

For each issue, explain the problem, quote the relevant document text where possible, and state what should be changed.

Examples ​

Consistency review: terminology

Review the whole document for inconsistent terminology or conflicting assumptions, including transport modes, units, client names, site names, and scheme names. Flag only conflicts that are visible in the document text.

Completeness review: placeholders

Identify placeholder text, TODO notes, unresolved comments, or drafting instructions that appear to have been left in the report. Ignore normal section headings and template labels.

References review: figures and tables

Check that figure and table references in the body text match the captions. Do not review figure images or table content; only review captions, numbering, and in-text references.

Quick review before saving ​

  • Does the prompt describe a clear review goal?
  • Does it say where to look?
  • Does it define what should be flagged?
  • Does it say what to ignore?
  • Can the review answer using document evidence?