The core of standard-based governance in rural revitalization lies in public standards， namely national， industrial， and local standards established under the Standardization Law and its implementing regulations. Using rural revitalization as an example， public standards face several significant problems such as unclear boundary in formulation， low quality of standard-making， lack of rule-of-law-based supervision and an incomplete supervision mechanism. The key to addressing these issues is the establishment of a systematic supervision mechanism. In terms of textual attributes， the text of public standards is a normative document formulated by administrative organs. Mandatory standards that are “directly and explicitly” related to rights and obligations should be classified as administrative normative documents. Recommended standards that are specifically cited by legal sources and mandatory standards at all levels and whose clauses constitute binding rules should also be deemed equivalent to administrative normative documents. For public standards that qualify as normative documents formulated by administrative organs， supervision should primarily be conducted by courts in an incidental manner， with self-supervision of administrative organs and social supervision of market entities as normal assistance， and work supervision of people’s governments and people’s congresses as irregular assistance. For public standards that are classified as or deemed administrative normative documents， supervision should primarily be conducted by the legislative branch’s record-filing review， with routine assistance from the executive branch's record-filing review， and irregular assistance from incidental court supervision， social supervision by market entities， and administrative self-supervision. Accordingly， it is recommended that the improvement of the record-filing review mechanism for rural revitalization public standards should focus on the review subject， review criteria， and review outcomes.