Skip to content
Back to skills

Translation Audit

ASecurity

Deep linguistic audit of translated books in the Alan Hirsch corpus. Randomly samples ~10,000 words from a target language (Brazilian Portuguese, Latin American Spanish, German, European Portuguese, or Mandarin Chinese) alongside the corresponding English source, then grades the translation on a 100-point rubric across six linguistic dimensions. Produces a full markdown report with specific issues, exact locations, improvement recommendations, and an agentic confidence overview for non-speake...

  • 2 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 4 views
  • Added October 26, 2026
researchrustgobashexpress

Works with

  • claude code
  • cli

Security analysis

A100/100

Scanned October 26, 2026

npx -y skills add JoshuaShepherd/my-skills --skill translation-audit --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Translation Audit?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Translation Audit
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/joshuashepherd-translation-audit/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/joshuashepherd-translation-audit)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: translation-audit
description: >
  Deep linguistic audit of translated books in the Alan Hirsch corpus. Randomly samples ~10,000
  words from a target language (Brazilian Portuguese, Latin American Spanish, German, European
  Portuguese, or Mandarin Chinese) alongside the corresponding English source, then grades the
  translation on a 100-point rubric across six linguistic dimensions. Produces a full markdown
  report with specific issues, exact locations, improvement recommendations, and an agentic
  confidence overview for non-speakers. Use when asked to audit, grade, review, or quality-check
  any translation in the corpus. Trigger phrases: "audit [language] translation", "grade the
  Spanish", "check translation quality", "review the German corpus", "translation QA".
allowed-tools: Read Bash Glob Grep Write
metadata:
  filePattern: "corpus/alan_hirsch/**/*.md"
---

# Translation Audit — Alan Hirsch Corpus

## Purpose

Perform a rigorous, evidence-based linguistic quality audit of translated books in the Alan Hirsch corpus. The audit samples ~10,000 words from a specified language, identifies the matching English source passages, and grades the translation on a structured 100-point rubric.

**This skill applies to:** Brazilian Portuguese (`pt-BR`), Latin American Spanish (`es`), German (`de`), European Portuguese (`pt`), French (`fr`), and Mandarin Chinese (`zh`).

> **Note on Mandarin:** The corpus does not currently contain Mandarin (zh) translations. If `zh` or `mandarin` is requested, report this clearly and offer to audit one of the available languages instead.

---

## Invocation

```
/translation-audit [language]
```

**Arguments:**

| Argument | Language | Corpus Suffix |
|----------|----------|---------------|
| `es` or `spanish` | Latin American Spanish | `-es` |
| `pt-BR` or `brazilian` or `portuguese-BR` | Brazilian Portuguese | `-pt-BR` |
| `pt` or `portuguese` | European Portuguese | `-pt` |
| `de` or `german` | German | `-de` |
| `fr` or `french` | French | `-fr` |
| `zh` or `mandarin` or `chinese` | Mandarin (not in corpus) | — |

If no language is specified, ask the user to choose.

---

## Corpus Inventory

The corpus lives at: `corpus/alan_hirsch/`

Available translations by language suffix:

| Language | Available Books |
|----------|-----------------|
| `-es` | 5q-es, disciplism-es, fast-forward-to-mission-es, metanoia-es, on-the-verge-es, reframation-es, rejesus-es, right-here-right-now-es, the-faith-of-leap-es, untamed-es |
| `-pt-BR` | disciplism-pt-BR, metanoia-pt-BR, on-the-verge-pt-BR, reframation-pt-BR, rejesus-pt-BR, right-here-right-now-pt-BR, the-faith-of-leap-pt-BR, the-forgotten-ways-handbook-pt-BR, untamed-pt-BR |
| `-pt` | 5q-pt, reframation-pt, the-faith-of-leap-pt, the-forgotten-ways-pt |
| `-de` | the-forgotten-ways-de |
| `-fr` | the-forgotten-ways-fr |

---

## Step-by-Step Execution

### Step 1 — Build the inventory

```bash
ls corpus/alan_hirsch/ | grep "\-[LANG_SUFFIX]$"
```

For each matching book directory, run:
```bash
ls corpus/alan_hirsch/[book-slug]/
```

Build a mental map of: `{ book_slug → [chapter_files] }` for the target language.

Also identify the English source book for each translation:
- `5q-es` → `5q`
- `reframation-pt-BR` → `reframation`
- `the-forgotten-ways-de` → `the-forgotten-ways`
- etc. (strip the language suffix to get the English slug)

### Step 2 — Stratified random sampling

**Goal:** Collect approximately 10,000 words of translated text, distributed across as many books and chapters as possible.

**Sampling strategy:**
1. If multiple books exist: select 2–4 books, spread across the available set (not all from one book)
2. Within each book: select chapters from different positions — pick from the beginning (ch01–02), middle (ch04–06), and end (last chapters)
3. Read each selected chapter in full
4. Track a running word count from the frontmatter `word_count` field or estimate from character count
5. Continue sampling until you have approximately 10,000 words of translated text
6. If a single book only (e.g., German has only `the-forgotten-ways-de`), sample 5–7 chapters distributed across the book

**Read selected translation files:**
```bash
cat corpus/alan_hirsch/[book-slug]/[chapter-file].md
```

### Step 3 — Locate English source passages

For each translation chapter sampled, find the corresponding English source chapter:
- Same `canonical_id` with the English book slug, OR
- Match by `chapter_slug` in the English book directory

```bash
ls corpus/alan_hirsch/[english-book-slug]/
cat corpus/alan_hirsch/[english-book-slug]/[matching-chapter].md
```

Read and retain the corresponding English passages for comparison.

### Step 4 — Apply the linguistic rubric

Evaluate the translation against the rubric below. For each dimension, document:
- The score awarded
- Maximum points available
- 2–5 specific issues with **exact location** (book slug, chapter file, paragraph or sentence)
- The problematic source text
- The current translation
- A recommended improvement

---

## Linguistic Rubric (100 Points)

### Dimension 1 — Semantic Fidelity (25 pts)

Measures whether the translation transfers the complete propositional and theological content of the source, without omission, addition, or distortion.

**Full marks (23–25):** Every concept present. Nuanced qualifiers preserved. Theological paradoxes intact. No paraphrasing that shifts meaning.

**Good (18–22):** Minor omissions of secondary clauses. Occasional softening of strong assertions. No core meaning lost.

**Adequate (12–17):** Noticeable condensation. Some metaphors flattened. Key theological nuances diluted.

**Weak (6–11):** Significant omissions. Paraphrase replaces precision. Source arguments obscured.

**Poor (0–5):** Major conceptual losses. Fundamental misrepresentation of the author's position.

**Watch for in theological texts:**
- Omission of conditional clauses ("if," "unless," "insofar as")
- Softening of prophetic statements
- Loss of rhetorical tension (e.g., antithesis, paradox)
- Addition of explanatory glosses not in source

---

### Dimension 2 — Register and Voice Preservation (20 pts)

Measures whether Alan's distinctive pastoral-prophetic voice is preserved: Christocentric gravity, narrative energy, prophetic urgency, collegial warmth, and theological depth.

**Full marks (18–20):** Voice is unmistakably Alan's in the target language. Christocentric tone intact. Prophetic passages carry weight. Pastoral warmth present.

**Good (14–17):** Voice largely preserved. Occasional flatness or over-formality. Prophetic urgency slightly diluted.

**Adequate (9–13):** Noticeably more generic. Theological depth present but voice is not distinctive. Feels like academic prose rather than pastoral-prophetic writing.

**Weak (4–8):** Voice largely lost. Translation sounds like a committee-produced document. No distinctiveness.

**Poor (0–3):** Alan's voice is unrecognizable. Register mismatch throughout.

**Watch for in theological texts:**
- Academic formalization of conversational passages
- Loss of direct address ("you," "we")
- Removal of rhetorical questions
- Toning down of prophetic imperatives
- Loss of sentence rhythm and staccato emphasis

---

### Dimension 3 — Target Language Fluency (20 pts)

Measures whether the translation reads naturally in the target language — free of calques, unidiomatic constructions, and source-language interference.

**Full marks (18–20):** Reads as if written natively. No detectable English substrate. Idioms and expressions are target-language native.

**Good (14–17):** Mostly fluent. Occasional stiff construction. Minor Anglicisms.

**Adequate (9–13):** Clearly translated. Some awkward phrases. Sentence-level interference evident.

**Weak (4–8):** Pervasive Anglicisms. Frequent unidiomatic constructions. Reading is effortful.

**Poor (0–3):** Machine-translation feel. Text is difficult to read in the target language.

**Language-specific watchpoints:**
- **Spanish (es):** ser/estar conflation, improper subjunctive, false cognates (e.g., "actual" ≠ "actual"), direct calques of "to be"
- **Portuguese pt-BR:** Europeanisms intruding (clitic placement), informal register shifts, false friends from Spanish
- **Portuguese pt:** Over-reliance on gerunds in pt-BR style (Brazilianisms in European PT), register mismatch for Portuguese publishing conventions
- **German (de):** Overly literal compound words, English loan words where German equivalents exist, improper Konjunktiv II for reported speech
- **French (fr):** Anglicisms ("challenge," "timing"), register shifts between soutenu and courant, calqued progressive forms ("est en train de")

---

### Dimension 4 — Theological Terminology Accuracy (15 pts)

Measures accurate rendering of Alan's specialized theological vocabulary, biblical citations, and missiological terminology.

**Full marks (14–15):** All key terms correctly and consistently rendered. Biblical citations match standard translations in target language. Missiological terms appropriately localized or explained.

**Good (11–13):** Key terms mostly correct. 1–2 instances of inconsistent rendering. Biblical quotes largely accurate.

**Adequate (7–10):** Several term inconsistencies. Some terms transliterated when translation exists. Biblical citations occasionally paraphrased.

**Weak (3–6):** Significant term errors. APEST, mDNA, or other core vocabulary rendered inconsistently or incorrectly.

**Poor (0–2):** Core theological terms untranslated, mistranslated, or omitted.

**Key terms to verify:**
| English | Check rendering in target language |
|---------|-----------------------------------|
| APEST (Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist, Shepherd, Teacher) | Maintained or officially localized? |
| mDNA (Missional DNA) | Preserved acronym or translated? |
| apostolic genius | Consistent rendering? |
| missional | Consistently rendered (not just "missionary")? |
| liminality / communitas | Correctly glossed or transliterated? |
| Christocentric | Correct theological term in target language? |
| discipleship / disciplism | Consistent rendering throughout? |
| incarnational / incarnational impulse | Target-language theological standard? |

---

### Dimension 5 — Syntactic Adaptation (10 pts)

Measures whether sentence structure has been appropriately restructured for the target language's syntax, rather than mirroring English word order.

**Full marks (9–10):** Sentences fully restructured for target language. Verb placement, clause ordering, and paragraph organization follow target-language conventions.

**Good (7–8):** Most sentences restructured. Occasional English word-order calques.

**Adequate (4–6):** Noticeable structural Anglicisms. Some sentences are syntactically uncomfortable.

**Weak (2–3):** Widespread structural interference. Text reads as translated, not native.

**Poor (0–1):** Near word-for-word structural calque throughout.

**Language-specific requirements:**
- **German:** Verb-second rule, subordinate clause verb-final placement, correct Satzklammer
- **Spanish/Portuguese:** Appropriate subject-verb inversion in questions, correct relative clause structure, proper placement of reflexive pronouns
- **French:** Correct inversion in questions, appropriate use of "dont" vs "de qui," liaison in flowing prose

---

### Dimension 6 — Internal Consistency (10 pts)

Measures whether key terms, names, and concepts are translated consistently across the sampled chapters, with no unexplained variation.

**Full marks (9–10):** All key terms consistent. No unexplained variation. Consistent use of formal/informal address throughout.

**Good (7–8):** Minor inconsistencies in secondary terms. Core vocabulary consistent.

**Adequate (4–6):** Noticeable inconsistencies in important terms. Reader would notice variation.

**Weak (2–3):** Core terminology inconsistent. "Missional" rendered 3 different ways, etc.

**Poor (0–1):** Fundamental inconsistency throughout. Suggests multiple translators without harmonization.

---

## Report Template

After completing the analysis, produce the following report verbatim in structure (populate with your findings):

---

```markdown
# Translation Quality Audit Report
## Alan Hirsch Corpus — [Language Name]

**Audit Date:** [Date]
**Language Audited:** [Full language name] (`[code]`)
**Books Sampled:** [list]
**Chapters Sampled:** [count] chapters, ~[word count] words
**English Baseline:** [corresponding English book(s)]

---

## Agentic Confidence Overview

*Why should a non-speaker trust this audit?*

[Write 3–5 paragraphs here addressing: (1) the objective, text-internal evidence methods used (cross-referencing source vs. target, terminology tracking, structural comparison) that do not require native-speaker intuition; (2) how the rubric criteria — fidelity, register, consistency — can be evaluated against the English original even without target-language fluency; (3) Claude's multilingual training and evaluation on [target language] theological and literary prose; (4) the specific calibration signals used (e.g., known biblical citation forms in [target language], established missiological vocabulary standards, recognized publishing conventions); (5) what limitations remain and how the report flags uncertainty where it exists.]

---

## Executive Summary

**Overall Score: [X] / 100** — [Grade: Excellent / Good / Adequate / Needs Revision / Poor]

| Dimension | Score | Max | Grade |
|-----------|-------|-----|-------|
| Semantic Fidelity | | 25 | |
| Register & Voice | | 20 | |
| Target Language Fluency | | 20 | |
| Theological Terminology | | 15 | |
| Syntactic Adaptation | | 10 | |
| Internal Consistency | | 10 | |
| **TOTAL** | | **100** | |

**Key Strengths:**
- [Bullet 1]
- [Bullet 2]
- [Bullet 3]

**Priority Issues:**
- [Bullet 1 — most important]
- [Bullet 2]
- [Bullet 3]

---

## Corpus Sample

### Sampled Material

| Book | Chapter File | Words | Position in Book |
|------|-------------|-------|-----------------|
| [slug] | [filename] | [n] | [Early/Middle/Late] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |
| **Total** | | **~[total]** | |

---

## Detailed Findings by Dimension

### 1. Semantic Fidelity — [X] / 25

**Assessment:** [2–3 sentence overall assessment of this dimension]

#### Issues Found

---

**Issue SF-01** · Severity: [Critical / Major / Minor]

- **Location:** `[book-slug]/[chapter-file].md`, paragraph [N] / section "[section heading]"
- **English source:**
  > "[Exact English passage]"
- **Current translation:**
  > "[Current translated passage]"
- **Problem:** [Specific explanation of what semantic content is lost, distorted, or added]
- **Recommended improvement:**
  > "[Suggested improved translation]"
- **Impact on score:** −[N] pts

---

**Issue SF-02** · Severity: [Critical / Major / Minor]
[... repeat structure ...]

---

### 2. Register & Voice Preservation — [X] / 20

**Assessment:** [2–3 sentence overall assessment]

#### Issues Found

---

**Issue RV-01** · Severity: [Critical / Major / Minor]

- **Location:** `[book-slug]/[chapter-file].md`, paragraph [N]
- **English source:**
  > "[passage]"
- **Current translation:**
  > "[passage]"
- **Problem:** [Explanation]
- **Recommended improvement:**
  > "[Suggestion]"
- **Impact on score:** −[N] pts

---

[... continue for each dimension: TF = Target Language Fluency, TT = Theological Terminology, SA = Syntactic Adaptation, IC = Internal Consistency ...]

---

## Findings Summary Table

| ID | Dimension | Severity | Location | Issue Summary |
|----|-----------|----------|----------|---------------|
| SF-01 | Semantic Fidelity | Major | `[file]` p.[N] | [Short description] |
| SF-02 | Semantic Fidelity | Minor | `[file]` p.[N] | [Short description] |
| RV-01 | Register & Voice | Major | `[file]` p.[N] | [Short description] |
| TF-01 | Target Fluency | Critical | `[file]` p.[N] | [Short description] |
| TT-01 | Theological Terms | Major | `[file]` p.[N] | [Short description] |
| SA-01 | Syntactic Adapt. | Minor | `[file]` p.[N] | [Short description] |
| IC-01 | Consistency | Major | `[file]` p.[N] | [Short description] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |

---

## Recommendations

### Immediate Revisions (Critical/Major issues)
[Numbered list of the most important changes needed, referencing issue IDs]

### Structural Considerations
[Any patterns suggesting systemic translation approach issues — e.g., translator unfamiliar with Alan's missiological vocabulary, possible machine-translation base with light human editing, multiple translators without style guide, etc.]

### Glossary Gaps
[Any terms that need standardized translations or glossary entries that appear to be missing]

---

## Auditor Notes

*Limitations and confidence qualifications for this specific audit:*

[Honest statement of what this audit cannot confirm — e.g., cultural idiom appropriateness for a specific regional audience, whether target-language readers would flag additional issues, any chapters that could not be cross-referenced due to missing English source material, word count limitations of the sample.]

---

*Report generated by Claude Code translation-audit skill — Alan Hirsch Corpus*
*Rubric version: 1.0 | Skill path: .claude/skills/translation-audit/SKILL.md*
```

---

## Execution Notes

- **Sample size target:** ~10,000 words of translated text. If a language has very few chapters (e.g., French fr has only 5 chapters, ~4,000 words total), audit the complete available corpus and note the limited sample size in the report.
- **Issue density:** Aim to document 2–5 issues per rubric dimension. Do not manufacture issues — if a dimension is well-executed, say so and award full or near-full marks with a brief explanation.
- **Exact quotation:** Always quote the actual text from the file — never paraphrase what the text says. Preserve formatting (bold, italics, blockquotes) in the quoted passages.
- **Location precision:** Every issue must include the exact file name and a locating reference (paragraph number from the top of the content body, or section heading). This allows the translator to find the passage immediately.
- **No hedging on scores:** Commit to a specific numeric score for each dimension. Document your reasoning. Do not give fractional scores.
- **Mandarin not available:** If `zh`/`mandarin` is requested, respond: "Mandarin (zh) translations are not currently in the Alan Hirsch corpus. Available languages: Latin American Spanish (es), Brazilian Portuguese (pt-BR), European Portuguese (pt), German (de), French (fr). Please choose one of these."
- **Output destination:** Write the report to `corpus/alan_hirsch/_index/translation-audit-[lang]-[YYYY-MM-DD].md`. Also print the full report to the conversation.

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…

Newsletter

Get the weekly list of safe new skills, and the ones we pulled.