Review, publish or discard a draft¶
Once a curator has prepared changes, they wait in a draft. The approver's job is to review them and then publish them — publishing is what makes them official and visible to document generation. If they should not be kept, you discard the draft.
Approvers only
Only approvers can publish. Curators prepare; approvers approve.
1. Review the draft¶
"Show me the pending changes for this subject."
Claude shows the full list of changes — everything that will become official on publish: edited titles, added or moved lessons, new chapters, and so on.
Then ask for the two checks, which answer two different questions:
"Check the draft before I publish."
- The wiring — what is connected to nothing: a document attached to no content (it would be produced empty), a section belonging to no document, a routine nobody uses, an isolated element. This is mechanical and the same for every subject; each point comes with what to do about it.
- The coverage — does what has been written actually cover what the curriculum expects? That is a judgement, made against the expectations written in the subject's guide.
Both are warnings, never blocks: the decision is yours. But a document "attached to nothing" almost always deserves a fix before publishing — it is the quietest failure in the system, since generation would simply produce an empty document with no error at all.
2. Publish¶
"Publish the draft."
Publishing happens in two steps, like the other important actions:
- Claude shows you a final summary of what will become official.
- You confirm → everything is published at once (atomically). From then on, document generation uses the new version.
Publishing makes changes official
Once published, the updated curriculum feeds material production. Review before you confirm.
Approving your own changes¶
By default an approver may publish a draft they edited themselves. Depending on the project's configuration, a second review may be required. Either way, the publish record shows whether the person who made the changes is also the one who published — for transparency.
Say the draft is ready¶
When you have finished a batch of changes, say so:
"Mark the draft ready for review. Note: chapters 1 to 3 are done, 4 still needs its assessment."
The note is the message you would have sent by hand: what changed, what is left. Whoever publishes sees it when they arrive.
Nobody is notified automatically
No email, no notification. The request shows up when the approver asks "where are we?" or looks at the draft. Tell them if they are not already looking.
If you want to keep working, take the request back:
"Actually I still have corrections — cancel the review request."
The draft itself is untouched; only the request is withdrawn. And once the draft is published (or discarded) the request disappears on its own — it cannot be left standing on work that is already live.
Take back a single change¶
A mistake in the last change does not mean throwing everything away:
"Undo the last change."
Claude first tells you which change it is about to take back (what, when, by whom), you confirm, and that one change leaves the draft — the others stay. Ask again and the change before it goes: you walk back up the thread one change at a time.
Two deliberate limits:
- You can only walk back within the current draft. Anything already published cannot be undone this way: it takes a new change, itself reviewed and published.
- If a more recent change touched the same element, Claude refuses and says which one, rather than patching together a mixture of the two. Take back the more recent one first.
Discard a draft¶
If a draft should not go out:
"Discard the draft."
The official version stays unchanged. (Both curators and approvers can discard.)
Check the history¶
Every action (edit, publish, discard, refusal) is recorded in a log. To review it:
"Show me the history of recent changes."
"Who published last, and when?"
Read-only log
The log is viewable by approvers. It cannot be edited or erased — that's what guarantees a reliable trail.