asciidoc-pubkit 0.1.2 → 0.6.1

data/data/review-rules.ja.yml

@@ -3,48 +3,109 @@ schema_version: 1
 terms:
   abstract-reference:
     terms:
-    - コスト
-    - 境界
+    # Concepts, evidence, and explanatory frames.
     - 契約
     - 観点
-    - 土台
-    - 橋渡し
-    - 入口
-    - 記述
-    - 場所
     - 意図
     - 役割
-    - 一続き
     - 根拠
+    - 概念
+    - 記述
+    # Components, actors, and hierarchical relationships.
+    - 構成要素
     - 部品
     - 開発者
-    - 概念
+    - 祖先
+    - 子孫
+    # Scope, separation, and organization.
+    - 境界
+    - 土台
+    - 橋渡し
+    - 入口
+    - 場所
+    - 一続き
+    - 区別
+    - 単発
+    - 別枠
+    # Resources and preparation.
+    - コスト
+    - 予算
+    - 準備
+    # Review context before choosing a katakana technical term.
+    - 木
+    - 余白
     question: Identify the concrete referent, components, or measurable work. Keep
-      established technical meanings.
+      established technical meanings. For 木 and 余白, consider a context-appropriate
+      katakana term (such as ツリー or マージン) only when it names the intended concept.
   weak-predicate:
     terms:
+    # Use, interpretation, and understanding (literal-mode surfaces).
     - 利用します
-    - 整理します
     - 扱います
-    - 示します
-    - 変わります
+    - 扱いません
+    - 意味しません
     - 把握します
+    - 捉えます
+    # Writing, representation, and inspection.
+    - 記述します
+    - 記述できます
+    - 書きます
+    - 示します
+    - 表します
+    - 表しません
+    - 読みます
+    - 調べます
+    - 調べられます
+    - 確かめます
+    - 探します
+    - 追えます
+    # Construction, preparation, and combination.
+    - 用意します
+    - 作ります
+    - 組み立てられます
+    - 組み合わせます
+    - 成り立たせています
+    # Organization, comparison, and selection.
+    - 整理します
+    - 分ける
+    - 分けて
+    - 分けています
+    - 分けません
     - 分けられます
+    - 区別します
+    - 区別できます
+    - 混同しません
+    - 混ぜません
     - そろえます
-    - まとまっています
-    - 加えます
-    - 探します
-    - 到達しません
-    - 扱いません
     - そろいます
+    - まとまっています
+    - 選びます
     - 選べます
-    - 成り立たせています
-    - 確かめます
-    - 書き換える
     - 絞れます
+    - 決まります
+    # Change, transfer, and retention.
+    - 変わります
+    - 書き換える
+    - 置き換えます
+    - 加えます
+    - 加わります
+    - 付けます
+    - 返す
+    - 返します
     - 渡します
+    - 送れます
+    - 残します
+    - 持ちます
+    - 消しません
+    # Existence, sufficiency, requirements, and completion.
     - あります
-    - 意味しません
+    - 足りません
+    - 求めます
+    - 到達しません
+    - 避けられます
+    - 終えられます
+    - 抜けられます
+    - 解消する
     question: Check whether the purpose, operation, or result is clear from the surrounding
       paragraph. Preserve negation and conditions.
   vague-degree:
@@ -55,13 +116,57 @@ terms:
       measurements and established technical meanings.
   contextual-phrase:
     terms:
+    # Limited exact surfaces for metaphorical operations, not banned verbs.
+    - 地味に効く
+    - 地味に効きます
+    - 地味に効いて
+    - 静かに壊れる
+    - 静かに壊れます
+    - 静かに壊れて
+    - 時間を溶かす
+    - 時間を溶かします
+    - 時間を溶かした
+    - 側に倒す
+    - 側に倒します
+    - 側に倒して
     - これらを
     - であることだけでは
     - あるものとします
+    # Retain this specific phrase for existing allow lists and fuller evidence.
     - わけではありません
     - 別です
-    question: Check the referent, assumption, or qualification against the surrounding
-      explanation. Preserve conditions and negation.
+    # Compressed noun relationships; suggestions are not automatic replacements.
+    - 明示選択
+    - 欠落理由
+    # Referents, separation, evaluation, and sufficiency.
+    - よいこと
+    - おそれ
+    - 別の
+    - 別に
+    - 空の
+    - 別々に
+    - ことだけで
+    - 目安です
+    - 必要がありません
+    # Shared qualifications cover longer expressions without enumerating them.
+    - ではありません
+    - にはなりません
+    - にはできません
+    - にはしません
+    - ことはしません
+    - 代用にしません
+    - でもありません
+    - してはいけません
+    - 表してはいません
+    question: Check whether the phrase adds a condition that changes the reader's
+      interpretation or action. If it only denies an overbroad reading already
+      excluded by the main claim, revise that claim or remove the qualification.
+      Preserve necessary negation, uncertainty, and technical boundaries. For
+      明示選択 and 欠落理由, consider making the relationship explicit (明示的選択 and
+      欠落した理由) if that preserves the meaning.
+      For metaphorical operations, identify the actual effect, policy, work, or
+      failure state from evidence; do not invent logging behavior, causes, or
+      implementation details. Keep literal and established technical meanings.
   generic-framing:
     terms:
     - 重要なのは
@@ -69,8 +174,11 @@ terms:
     - 本章では
     - ここでは
     - まとめると
-    question: Check whether this framing adds useful scope or information instead
-      of repeating the explanation.
+    - このように
+    - 要するに
+    question: Check whether this opening or recap adds a claim, scope, or consequence
+      beyond the surrounding prose. Keep useful framing; otherwise state the
+      substantive claim directly. Do not force a uniform sentence pattern.
 verbs:
   扱う:
   - 扱う
@@ -107,6 +215,56 @@ verbs:
   - 絞れる
   渡す:
   - 渡す
+  決まる:
+  - 決まる
+  組み立てる:
+  - 組み立てる
+  組み合わせる:
+  - 組み合わせる
+  足りる:
+  - 足りる
+  置き換える:
+  - 置き換える
+  加わる:
+  - 加わる
+  返す:
+  - 返す
+  避ける:
+  - 避ける
+  求める:
+  - 求める
+  送る:
+  - 送る
+  - 送れる
+  読む:
+  - 読む
+  付ける:
+  - 付ける
+  残す:
+  - 残す
+  持つ:
+  - 持つ
+  表す:
+  - 表す
+  終える:
+  - 終える
+  消す:
+  - 消す
+  調べる:
+  - 調べる
+  作る:
+  - 作る
+  抜ける:
+  - 抜ける
+  捉える:
+  - 捉える
+  書く:
+  - 書く
+  混ぜる:
+  - 混ぜる
+  追う:
+  - 追う
+  - 追える
   ある:
   - ある
 sahen:
@@ -115,9 +273,15 @@ sahen:
 - 把握
 - 到達
 - 意味
+- 記述
+- 用意
+- 区別
+- 解消
+- 混同
 negative_only:
 - 到達する
 - 意味する
 compound_nouns:
 - 一続き
 - 開発者
+- 構成要素

data/data/writing/ja/criteria.md

@@ -0,0 +1,223 @@
+# Shared criteria for Japanese technical prose
+
+## Contents
+
+- Start with the paragraph's technical purpose
+- Replace abstraction with the thing being discussed
+- Give weak predicates a concrete action or consequence
+- Explain metaphorical operations from evidence
+- Distinguish instructions, behavior, and capabilities
+- Make relationships explicit
+- Keep claims within their evidence and purpose
+- Remove generated-prose patterns without flattening the meaning
+- Preserve exact technical terminology
+- Revise the complete paragraph
+- Headings and the relation to figures and code
+
+Apply these criteria in context. They identify patterns that deserve inspection,
+not words that must always be removed.
+
+## Start with the paragraph's technical purpose
+
+Before rewriting sentences, summarize each paragraph in one sentence:
+
+1. What implementation, behavior, or decision is this paragraph about?
+2. Who or what performs the action?
+3. Under what condition does it apply?
+4. What changes or follows as a result?
+5. What can an engineer decide or verify from it?
+
+If the summary is impossible, repair the paragraph's argument before polishing
+individual phrases. A short sentence is not automatically clear; omitted
+subjects, objects, complements, and referents must still be recoverable from the
+adjacent sentences.
+
+## Replace abstraction with the thing being discussed
+
+Abstract terms are valid when their referent is stated. Inspect terms such as:
+
+| Term | What must be identifiable |
+| --- | --- |
+| 費用・コスト | investigation time, maintenance work, CPU time, memory, network transfer, or money |
+| 契約 | accepted inputs, returned values and errors, compatibility, ownership, concurrency, or another promised behavior |
+| 境界 | the two components and the call, data transfer, or ownership transfer between them |
+| 観点 | the actual comparison axis, such as type safety, shutdown behavior, allocation count, or supported OS |
+| 書き方 | syntax, implementation technique, API shape, or document notation |
+| 範囲・射程 | supported readers, covered subjects, applicable versions, or behavior guaranteed by an API |
+
+Do not improve a sentence by replacing one abstraction with another. For
+example, changing `費用` to `コスト` says nothing unless the sentence identifies
+what increases.
+
+## Give weak predicates a concrete action or consequence
+
+Predicates such as `利用します`, `決めます`, `示します`, `扱います`, `整理します`,
+`表します`, `保てます`, `異なります`, `同じではありません`, `残します`, and
+`評価します` often omit the important information. Ask what is used for what,
+which value or policy is decided, what differs, where evidence is stored, and
+which result drives the decision.
+
+Prefer a precise action or consequence:
+
+- `検証結果を利用します` becomes `検証結果をAPIの見直し材料にします` when that
+  is the actual purpose.
+- `採用する機能を決めます` becomes `サポートするバージョンと互換性を基に採用を
+  判断します` when those are the criteria.
+- `結果を残します` becomes `実行したコマンドと結果をプルリクエストへ記録します`
+  when that is the storage location.
+
+Do not choose a more impressive synonym merely to vary sentence endings. Keep
+the technically correct verb when it names the real operation.
+
+## Explain metaphorical operations from evidence
+
+Inspect expressions such as `地味に効く`, `側に倒す`, `時間を溶かす`, and
+`静かに壊れる`. Identify the actual effect, selection policy, work that took
+time, or failure state before revising the paragraph. A system can be a valid
+subject: `サーバーが応答を返します` describes observable behavior. Repair
+personification only when it conceals who acts or what happens.
+
+Concrete wording must not invent facts. `静かに壊れる` does not by itself establish
+whether an exception, warning, or log is emitted. `地味に効く` does not establish
+which failure a setting prevents. Check the surrounding explanation, code, or
+primary documentation; when evidence is missing, record what needs confirmation
+instead of supplying a plausible implementation or effect.
+
+For example, `採否を判断できない項目は除外する側に倒します` can become
+`採否を判断できない項目は除外します` if that is the stated policy. Retain its
+condition and action. Keep literal meanings and established technical terms;
+`解像度`, `触媒`, and `正本` are not inherently defects.
+
+## Distinguish instructions, behavior, and capabilities
+
+Identify whether a sentence asks the reader to act, describes an actual system
+operation, or states an available capability. Use `〜してください` for an
+instruction when that fits the document's voice. Do not change `〜します` to
+`〜できます` merely to make the subject clearer: automatic execution and an
+optional capability are different claims. Name the actor when context does not
+identify it, without repeating an already clear subject in every sentence.
+
+## Make relationships explicit
+
+Inspect a sentence when it:
+
+- begins a new topic without connecting it to the preceding paragraph;
+- says two things differ without naming the differing property;
+- introduces a comparison without naming the alternatives and comparison axis;
+- uses `これ`, `それ`, `前者`, or `後者` when the referent requires rereading;
+- strings three or more abstract nouns together without explaining their
+  relationship;
+- uses an abrupt `読者は` even though the effect can be stated directly;
+- attaches `へ` or `から` to an abstract noun in phrases such as `判断へ戻す`;
+- uses a literal translation that is not an established term in the technical
+  domain.
+
+When a standalone sentence cannot identify its subject or object, use the
+surrounding paragraph to supply the missing noun. Do not repeat the subject in
+every sentence when it is already unambiguous.
+Use prose for a sequence in which one event causes or conditions the next; use
+a list when the items are genuinely parallel. Do not turn a causal explanation
+into disconnected bullets or impose an order on independent items.
+
+## Keep claims within their evidence and purpose
+
+State whether a claim comes from an implementation, a test, a cited study, or
+the author's inference. Match its scope to that evidence: a single example or
+test establishes what happened under its stated conditions, not a universal
+result. Preserve uncertainty when evidence does not settle the claim; do not
+weaken an established fact merely to sound cautious.
+
+Before adding a qualification, ask what decision or interpretation it changes.
+Correct an overbroad main claim at its source. Remove a following disclaimer if
+the preceding explanation already excludes that reading. When a limitation
+affects use, implementation, or verification, state the concrete condition and
+connect it to the relevant action or check. Do not delete a technical boundary
+merely because it uses negative wording.
+
+## Remove generated-prose patterns without flattening the meaning
+
+Common patterns that merit paragraph-level review include:
+
+- repeated `AではなくBです` or `AだけでなくBも` contrasts;
+- paired short slogans that omit the actor, object, condition, or consequence;
+- repeated endings such as `扱います`, `示します`, or `選びます`;
+- `重要なのは`, `ポイントは`, or `〜することです` standing in for the actual
+  technical fact;
+- a section opening that only announces what the section will discuss;
+- a section ending that only says the material was explained or organized;
+- metaphors such as `土台`, `器`, `橋渡し`, or `輪が閉じる` used instead of a
+  concrete technical operation;
+- a standalone qualification that only denies an overbroad reading already
+  excluded by the preceding explanation, such as a redundant
+  `という意味ではありません` or `保証ではありません`;
+- generic praise, warnings, or recommendations without the condition that makes
+  them true.
+
+Keep a contrast when the two alternatives and the difference that affects the
+decision are explicit. Keep necessary repetition when it improves technical
+accuracy.
+Do not shorten sentences or vary endings mechanically. Read the sequence aloud
+and repair the missing relationship rather than replacing one stock pattern
+with another.
+
+## Preserve exact technical terminology
+
+Check terminology against identifiers, surrounding code, the project's
+glossary, and primary documentation before changing it.
+
+- Distinguish an API from a function, method, interface, protocol, or command.
+- Distinguish an error value, operation failure, incident, and defect.
+- Distinguish resource ownership from the responsibility to close or stop it.
+- Use the project's chosen forms consistently, such as `goroutine` versus
+  `ゴルーチン`, or `reflection` versus `リフレクション`.
+- Replace unnecessary English words with established Japanese terms, but retain
+  identifiers and official names.
+- Do not describe a language operation with a loose everyday verb when the
+  domain has a precise term, such as name shadowing, method promotion, parsing,
+  serialization, cancellation, or resource release.
+
+Natural Japanese must not erase a technical distinction. If the original claim
+is ambiguous, inspect the code or authoritative documentation before editing.
+Preserve numerical values, versions, settings, responsibility, causal claims,
+and implementation requirements. Do not add an actor, cause, mechanism, or
+effect that the source evidence does not establish. Making prose more specific
+requires evidence, not a guess.
+
+## Revise the complete paragraph
+
+Use a finding to understand the intended claim, then rewrite the paragraph so
+that every sentence connects to the next. Do not paste an isolated suggested
+sentence into the manuscript without adjusting its context. After editing,
+read the paragraph as continuous prose and verify subject, object, modifier,
+condition, cause, and effect.
+
+Assess readability and meaning preservation separately. Compare the source and
+revision for both missing information and unsupported additions, including
+conditions, negation, numbers, actors, causes, and implementation requirements.
+For example, removing a unique constraint from a duplicate-message check can
+lose a concurrency requirement even when the revised paragraph sounds clearer.
+Record unresolved evidence and keep necessary repetition or qualifications.
+No candidate count or mechanical verification result proves semantic correctness.
+Sentence length, punctuation, and list density can help locate passages to read;
+they are not fixed acceptance thresholds. Keep lists for parallel items and
+ordered procedures, and prose for connected explanations.
+
+
+## Headings and the relation to figures and code
+
+Headings identify the subject, operation, or comparison actually explained.
+Do not promise a broader comparison than the text supports or replace the
+subject with an unexplained metaphor. Heading length and required section
+names belong to the book's format, not to universal prose quality.
+Do not force every heading into a conclusion sentence or the same template;
+make the section's content identifiable in the form the book uses.
+
+Introduce tables and figures with enough context to explain what is compared
+or traced, and explain what the reader can establish from them. Keep identifiers,
+values, ordering, and conditions consistent with the code or clearly label a
+simplified conceptual representation. Do not repeat every label as prose.
+
+File paths and type names belong where they help explain a specific operation;
+avoid a list of identifiers before the reader knows their roles. Bibliographic
+and implementation-file descriptions introduce the referenced material, rather
+than narrating the author's research activity.

data/lib/asciidoc_pubkit/cli.rb

@@ -3,10 +3,13 @@
 module AsciidocPubkit
   class CLI
     HELP = <<~TEXT
-      Usage: asciidoc-pubkit review <command> [options] <input>
+      Usage: asciidoc-pubkit <group> <command> [options] [input]
 
       Commands:
+        writing criteria      Print the shared Japanese prose criteria
+        writing prompt        Generate a Japanese technical writing prompt
         review scan FILE       Collect Japanese prose and review candidates
+        review score FILE      Score Japanese prose; optionally use a local AI CLI
         review prompt SESSION  Generate an English review prompt with Japanese source excerpts
         review verify SESSION  Compare edited sources with the saved baseline
 
@@ -14,31 +17,46 @@ module AsciidocPubkit
         --help                 Show help (also supported for each command)
         --version              Show the version
 
-      No command edits manuscript files or invokes an AI service.
+      Use --lang ja with writing commands and review commands. Other review and
+      writing languages are not supported yet and return an error.
+      No command edits manuscripts. review score --agent explicitly invokes a
+      local Codex or Claude CLI, which may connect to its configured AI service.
     TEXT
 
-    def self.run(arguments, out: $stdout, err: $stderr)
+    def self.run(arguments, out: $stdout, err: $stderr, input: $stdin)
       args = arguments.dup
       if args == ['--version']
         out.puts VERSION
         return 0
       end
-      if args.empty? || args == ['--help'] || args == ['-h'] || args == ['review', '--help']
+      if args.empty? || args == ['--help'] || args == ['-h'] || %w[review writing].any? { |group| args == [group, '--help'] }
         out.puts HELP
         return 0
       end
       group, command = args.shift(2)
-      raise Error, 'Expected review scan, review prompt, or review verify. Use --help.' unless group == 'review' && %w[scan prompt verify].include?(command)
+      valid = (group == 'review' && %w[scan score prompt verify].include?(command)) ||
+              (group == 'writing' && %w[criteria prompt].include?(command))
+      raise Error, 'Unknown command. Use --help.' unless valid
       options = { attributes: {} }
       parser = OptionParser.new do |opts|
-        opts.banner = "Usage: asciidoc-pubkit review #{command} [options] #{command == 'scan' ? 'FILE' : 'SESSION'}"
-        opts.on('-o', '--output PATH', command == 'scan' ? 'New session directory (default: .pubkit/review)' : 'New output file (default: standard output)') { |v| options[:output] = v }
-        if command == 'scan'
+        input_name = group == 'writing' ? '' : (%w[scan score].include?(command) ? ' FILE' : ' SESSION')
+        opts.banner = "Usage: asciidoc-pubkit #{group} #{command} [options]#{input_name}"
+        opts.on('-o', '--output PATH', group == 'review' && command == 'scan' ? 'New session directory (default: .pubkit/review)' : 'New output file (default: standard output)') { |v| options[:output] = v }
+        opts.on('--lang LANG', 'Language (ja only in this release)') { |v| options[:language] = v }
+        if group == 'review' && %w[scan score].include?(command)
+          if command == 'scan'
+            opts.on('-y', '--yes', 'Answer yes to replacement confirmation') { options[:yes] = true }
+            opts.on('--no-input', 'Never prompt; fail on existing output unless --yes') { options[:no_input] = true }
+          else
+            opts.on('--json', 'Print the complete score report as JSON') { options[:json] = true }
+            opts.on('--agent NAME', 'Invoke local codex or claude for readability scoring') { |v| options[:agent] = v }
+            opts.on('--model NAME', 'Local evaluator model (default: CLI default)') { |v| options[:model] = v }
+            opts.on('--timeout SECONDS', Integer, 'Local evaluator timeout (default: 300)') { |v| options[:timeout] = v }
+          end
           opts.on('--only FILE', 'Review one included file in the book context') { |v| options[:only] = v }
           opts.on('--config FILE', 'Use an explicit YAML configuration') { |v| options[:config] = v }
           opts.on('--rules FILE', 'Replace default review rules with a YAML rule set') { |v| options[:rules] = v }
           opts.on('--base-dir DIR', 'Set the Asciidoctor base directory') { |v| options[:base_dir] = v }
-          opts.on('--lang LANG', 'Prose language (ja only)') { |v| options[:language] = v }
           opts.on('--tokenizer NAME', 'mecab (default) or literal (limited phrase matching)') { |v| options[:tokenizer] = v }
           opts.on('--style STYLE', 'preserve (default), desu-masu, or dearu') { |v| options[:style] = v }
           opts.on('-a', '--attribute NAME=VALUE', 'Set an Asciidoctor attribute; repeat as needed') do |v|
@@ -46,7 +64,7 @@ module AsciidocPubkit
             raise Error, 'Attribute name cannot be empty.' if key.nil? || key.empty?
             options[:attributes][key] = value || ''
           end
-        elsif command == 'prompt'
+        elsif group == 'review' && command == 'prompt'
           opts.on('--mode MODE', 'revise (default) or diagnose') { |v| options[:mode] = v }
         end
         opts.on('-h', '--help', 'Show command help') { options[:help] = true }
@@ -56,9 +74,38 @@ module AsciidocPubkit
         out.puts parser
         return 0
       end
+      if group == 'writing'
+        raise Error, 'Writing commands do not accept an input file. Use --help.' unless args.empty?
+        language = Language.validate!(options.fetch(:language, Language::DEFAULT), operation: 'writing')
+        content = command == 'criteria' ? Writing.criteria(language) : Writing.prompt(language)
+        output(content, options[:output], out)
+        return 0
+      end
       raise Error, 'Exactly one input is required. Use --help.' unless args.length == 1
+      Language.validate!(options[:language], operation: 'review') if options[:language]
+      if command == 'score'
+        if options[:output] && (File.exist?(options[:output]) || File.symlink?(options[:output]))
+          raise Error, "Output already exists: #{options[:output]}"
+        end
+        report = Score.run(args.first, options)
+        text = options[:json] ? JSON.pretty_generate(report) + "\n" : Score.format(report)
+        output(text, options[:output], out)
+        return 0
+      end
       if command == 'scan'
-        result = Session.scan(args.first, options)
+        result = Session.scan(args.first, options) do |destination|
+          if options[:yes]
+            true
+          elsif options[:no_input] || !input.tty?
+            raise Error, "Output already exists: #{destination}. Use --yes to replace it or --output for a new session."
+          else
+            err.print "Output already exists: #{destination}. Replace it? [y/N] "
+            err.flush
+            answer = input.gets
+            raise Error, 'Scan cancelled; existing session was kept.' unless answer && %w[y yes].include?(answer.strip.downcase)
+            true
+          end
+        end
         out.puts "Scanned #{result['paragraphs']} paragraphs; found #{result['findings']} review candidates."
         out.puts "Tokenizer: #{result['tokenizer']}#{result['tokenizer'] == 'literal' ? ' (limited phrase matching; no morphological analysis)' : ' (UTF-8 IPADIC)'}"
         out.puts "Coverage notices: #{result['coverage_notices']}. See document.json for limitations."
@@ -66,6 +113,10 @@ module AsciidocPubkit
         return 0
       end
       session = Session.new(args.first)
+      saved_language = Language.validate!(session.language, operation: 'review')
+      if options[:language] && options[:language] != saved_language
+        raise Error, "Requested language #{options[:language].inspect} does not match session language #{saved_language.inspect}."
+      end
       if command == 'prompt'
         output(session.prompt(options.fetch(:mode, 'revise')), options[:output], out)
         return 0

data/lib/asciidoc_pubkit/document.rb

@@ -26,6 +26,11 @@ module AsciidocPubkit
           super(*args)
         end
         doc.parse
+        document_language = doc.attr('lang')
+        if document_language && document_language != settings.fetch('language')
+          Language.validate!(document_language, operation: 'review')
+          raise Error, "Document language #{document_language.inspect} does not match review language #{settings.fetch('language').inspect}."
+        end
         @line_index = Hash.new { |hash, key| hash[key] = [] }
         @source_lines = @sources.to_h do |path, raw|
           lines = raw.lines.map { |line| line.delete_suffix("\n").delete_suffix("\r") }

data/lib/asciidoc_pubkit/language.rb

@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+# frozen_string_literal: true
+
+module AsciidocPubkit
+  module Language
+    WRITING = %w[ja].freeze
+    REVIEW = %w[ja].freeze
+    DEFAULT = 'ja'
+
+    def self.validate!(value, operation:)
+      supported = { 'writing' => WRITING, 'review' => REVIEW }.fetch(operation)
+      return value if supported.include?(value)
+
+      raise Error, "Unsupported #{operation} language #{value.inspect}; supported: #{supported.join(', ')}."
+    end
+  end
+end