A structured review process for identifying representation concerns in fiction manuscripts.
This skill surfaces potential issues for the author's consideration — it does not dictate
creative choices. The author retains full authority over their work.

## Key Points

- User says "sensitivity read", "check for stereotypes", "representation review"
- User wants to identify potentially harmful tropes before publication
- User is writing outside their own experience and wants a flag-pass
- User wants to ensure diverse characters are portrayed with depth and respect
- **Inspiration porn**: Is a disabled character's primary narrative function to inspire able-bodied
- **Cure narratives**: Is disability treated as a problem to be fixed rather than an aspect of
- **Accuracy**: Do depicted disabilities match real-world experience, or are they based on
- **Agency**: Do disabled characters make their own choices and drive their own arcs?
- **Language**: Is person-first or identity-first language used consistently with community
- **Magical disability**: Is a disability paired with a compensating superpower (blind
- **Bury your gays**: Do LGBTQ+ characters die at disproportionate rates compared to straight
- **Coming out as entire arc**: Is a character's queerness their only defining trait, or are

Sensitivity and Representation Review Skill

A structured review process for identifying representation concerns in fiction manuscripts. This skill surfaces potential issues for the author's consideration — it does not dictate creative choices. The author retains full authority over their work.

When to Use This Skill

• User says "sensitivity read", "check for stereotypes", "representation review"
• User wants to identify potentially harmful tropes before publication
• User is writing outside their own experience and wants a flag-pass
• User wants to ensure diverse characters are portrayed with depth and respect

Core Principle

This skill identifies patterns and flags concerns. It does not label text as "wrong" or demand changes. Every flag is a question for the author to consider, not a verdict. Fiction can and should explore difficult, uncomfortable, and morally complex territory. The goal is to help authors make informed choices, not safe ones.

Review Dimensions

1 — Gender Representation

Examine agency distribution, description patterns (appearance vs. action), role diversity, the Bechdel baseline, power dynamics, and treatment of non-binary characters. Flag when female characters only react to male actions, or when gender roles are uniformly stereotypical.

2 — Racial and Ethnic Portrayal

Examine descriptor patterns (unmarked whiteness), dialect rendering, role limitations (stereotypical casting), cultural accuracy, white savior dynamics, and whether cultural practices are depicted as normal or exoticized.

3 — Disability Depiction

Examine:

• Inspiration porn: Is a disabled character's primary narrative function to inspire able-bodied characters?
• Cure narratives: Is disability treated as a problem to be fixed rather than an aspect of a full human life?
• Accuracy: Do depicted disabilities match real-world experience, or are they based on misconceptions?
• Agency: Do disabled characters make their own choices and drive their own arcs?
• Language: Is person-first or identity-first language used consistently with community preferences? Is outdated or slur-adjacent terminology present?
• Magical disability: Is a disability paired with a compensating superpower (blind characters who "see" better than sighted ones)?

4 — LGBTQ+ Representation

Examine:

• Bury your gays: Do LGBTQ+ characters die at disproportionate rates compared to straight characters? Is their suffering the primary narrative purpose?
• Coming out as entire arc: Is a character's queerness their only defining trait, or are they a full person who also happens to be queer?
• Villainous coding: Are antagonists coded as queer through stereotyped traits while protagonists are straight?
• Relationship parity: Are queer relationships given the same depth, tenderness, and screen time as straight ones?
• Historical accuracy vs. erasure: In historical settings, is queerness acknowledged as having always existed, rather than treated as modern invention?
• Terminology: Is language current and respectful? Are slurs used only with clear narrative purpose and appropriate consequences?

5 — Cultural Accuracy and Sensitivity

Examine:

• Setting research: If the story is set in a real culture, are customs, geography, food, religion, and social norms accurately depicted?
• Language use: Are non-English words used correctly, with proper diacritical marks? Are they used for flavor or for function?
• Religious depiction: Are religious practices and beliefs depicted accurately and with appropriate nuance?
• Historical sensitivity: For stories involving historical atrocities (slavery, genocide, colonialism), is the depiction respectful to survivors and descendants?
• Naming conventions: Do character names match their stated cultural background?

6 — Power Dynamics and Structural Patterns

Track by demographic: who speaks, who acts, who suffers, who gets complexity. Does the narrative perspective center dominant groups even when telling marginalized characters' stories?

7 — Age-Appropriate Content

For the stated target audience, check violence level, sexual content, profanity, and thematic weight against genre and age-category expectations.

Output Format

# Sensitivity and Representation Review
**Title**: [Novel title]
**Date**: [Today]
**Reviewer note**: This review flags concerns for the author's consideration. It does not
prescribe changes. The author retains full creative authority.

## Summary
[2-3 sentence overview of the manuscript's representation landscape]

## Findings by Dimension

### Gender Representation
**Overall**: [brief assessment]
**Flags**:
- [flag]: [description] — Ch. X (p. Y)
  - *Context*: [why this might be a concern]
  - *Consider*: [question for the author, not a directive]

### Racial and Ethnic Portrayal
[same structure]

### Disability Depiction
[same structure]

### LGBTQ+ Representation
[same structure]

### Cultural Accuracy
[same structure]

### Power Dynamics
[same structure]

### Age-Appropriate Content
[same structure]

## Pattern Summary
[Are there systemic patterns across dimensions, or isolated instances?]

## Strengths
[What the manuscript does well in terms of representation — always include this section]

## Recommended Resources
[Relevant sensitivity reading resources, #ownvoices perspectives, or research materials
the author might consult for flagged areas]

Anti-Patterns

Prescribing creative decisions. This skill flags and questions. It does not command. "You must change this" is never appropriate. "You may want to consider whether this reads as..." is the correct framing.

Flattening nuance into checklists. Representation quality is not about counting demographics. A story with one deeply rendered character from a marginalized group is better than a story with a diverse cast of cardboard cutouts.

Ignoring genre context. A grimdark fantasy will depict cruelty. A historical novel set during Jim Crow will contain racism. The question is not whether these things appear but how the narrative frames them — does it endorse, challenge, or merely depict?

Projecting a single cultural lens. Different cultures have different norms and values. A behavior that reads as problematic in one cultural context may be perfectly normal in another. Flag with humility and acknowledge when you lack expertise.

Forgetting to note strengths. Always include what the manuscript does well. A review that only lists problems is demoralizing and incomplete. Good representation deserves recognition.

Treating this as a substitute for human sensitivity readers. This skill is a first pass. For manuscripts dealing substantially with experiences outside the author's own, recommend that the author also consult human sensitivity readers from the relevant communities.