SkillAtlasSkill 详情

academic-humanizer

Start here: Use & develop your own Skill ecosystem

审核状态:已审核Quality 72Security 82

复制安装命令

用 Codex 或 Claude 安装复制这段 Prompt,粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里,让它先审查 Skill 页面再帮你安装。

复制前请先查看来源、License 和安全提示。

项目 README

来源文件:README.md

抓取于 2026年8月23日

COMPASS Skills logo

COMPASS Skills

GitHub stars GitHub forks License Status alpha Linux.do

中文 · Security · License

Start here: Use & develop your own Skill ecosystem

A practical tutorial for using SKILL.md, auditing reusable skills, drafting skills with AI, extracting real workflows, and building a local Skill ecosystem.

npx skills add dongshuyan/compass-skills --skill '*' -a claude-code

COMPASS Skills gives AI agents eight local skills: four runtime collaboration skills, two run-history skill-engineering skills, one academic humanization skill, and one local hiring-support skill.

The project currently ships eight SKILL.md skills:

SkillPurpose
task-clarifierAligns goals, scope, evidence, acceptance criteria, and risk boundaries before ambiguous, costly, or externally visible work.
task-forestMaintains a repo-local task forest / DAG with goals, subtasks, dependencies, progress, deviations, todos, decisions, and conversation history.
session-handoff-promptCompresses the current AI conversation's goal, progress, constraints, and next steps into a paste-ready prompt for a new AI conversation.
user-profile-keeperMaintains a local, auditable, correctable collaboration profile for communication preferences, risk style, and recurring working context.
run-history-skill-builderTurns completed or repeatedly refined run history into a new reusable skill package or a reviewed skill-design plan.
run-history-skill-upgraderAutomatically turns session evidence from real execution, encountered and resolved difficulties, validation results, and user feedback into an upgrade plan for an existing skill, forming the simplest controlled self-evolution loop; it applies changes only after explicit approval.
academic-humanizerHelps write or revise English and Chinese academic prose by removing formulaic AI-like patterns and restoring a natural scholarly voice while preserving claims, evidence strength, and logical relations.
assess-interview-candidateTurns an authorized resume and job description into an auditable evidence layer and a concise three-part offline interviewer report with resume checks and markable structured questions.

For multi-skill repositories, install only the functions you actually need. The run-history pair supports skill engineering; academic-humanizer helps authors avoid AI-sounding language while drafting and remove it from existing academic prose.

Quick Start

List the available skills before installing:

npx skills add dongshuyan/compass-skills --list

Install all skills for Claude Code:

npx skills add dongshuyan/compass-skills --skill '*' -a claude-code

Install all skills for both Codex and Claude Code:

npx skills add dongshuyan/compass-skills --skill '*' -a codex -a claude-code

After installation, invoke the skills directly in an AI conversation:

$task-clarifier
$task-forest
$session-handoff-prompt
$user-profile-keeper
$run-history-skill-builder
$run-history-skill-upgrader
$academic-humanizer
$assess-interview-candidate

For manual installation, copy the eight folders under skills/ into the agent's local skills directory and keep their references/, scripts/, assets/, evals/, and agents/ subdirectories intact.

Why COMPASS Exists

Long-running agent work needs four kinds of state:

  • User context: communication preferences, risk boundaries, recurring omissions, and collaboration style.
  • Project context: where the current request fits, what it depends on, and how far it has progressed.
  • Goal context: how the current task contributes to the original objective and whether it still matches it.
  • Handoff context: what a new AI conversation needs to continue the current task without replaying the whole transcript.

COMPASS organizes that state into four local workflows:

  1. A local profile that the user can inspect and correct.
  2. A repo-local task graph that survives AI conversation boundaries.
  3. A paste-ready continuation prompt for a new AI conversation.
  4. A clarification gate before ambiguous or risky execution.

How The Core And Meta Skills Work Together

task-clarifier is the entry point for ambiguous, high-cost, high-risk, evidence-sensitive, or externally visible work. It first identifies the user-owned decisions that must be made, asks 1-3 focused questions with recommended answers, confirms shared understanding, and only then searches or executes.

task-forest records long-running work structure: why a task exists, where it fits, how far it progressed, what changed, and what remains unresolved.

session-handoff-prompt turns the current AI conversation, explicit transcripts, workspace evidence, and optional task-forest exports into a concise prompt for the next AI conversation. It reads task-forest as structured context but never modifies it.

user-profile-keeper stores collaboration preferences locally. Future AI conversations use the profile to ask relevant questions and apply the right risk boundary. Current files, logs, and user-provided context remain the authority; secrets stay out of the profile.

run-history-skill-builder turns a completed or repeatedly refined workflow into a new skill package or a plan-only design. If the request is really about changing an existing skill, it hands the job off instead of editing that skill directly.

run-history-skill-upgrader takes the next step for existing skills: it automatically reads session evidence from real execution, encountered and resolved difficulties, validation results, and user feedback, then produces a concrete upgrade plan and stops. Only after explicit approval of that plan does it edit files. In practice, this is the simplest controlled self-evolution loop for skills: periodically run a target skill, accumulate real session evidence, then let the upgrader turn that evidence into a reviewed upgrade plan and, after approval, an applied change.

academic-humanizer helps authors avoid AI-sounding language while drafting and remove it from existing academic prose. It targets formulaic, vacuous, mechanically repetitive, and process-leaking patterns while protecting claims, evidence strength, quotations, formulas, citations, technical names, modality, logic, and scope. The result aims to read as natural, credible scholarly writing and to reduce the likelihood that readers perceive it as AI-generated; it does not promise a universal authorship judgment.

assess-interview-candidate prepares human recruiters for a structured interview. It keeps detailed evidence and validation data in a local audit layer while presenting only a candidate overview, job-relevant resume uncertainties, and 12-18 directly readable questions in the offline HTML. It never authorizes automatic hiring, rejection, or ranking.

user-profile-keeper    -> who is the user and how should we collaborate?
task-forest            -> where does this task fit and is it still aligned?
session-handoff-prompt -> what should the next AI conversation know to continue now?
task-clarifier         -> what should the agent do now?
run-history-skill-builder  -> how do we package this proven workflow as a new skill?
run-history-skill-upgrader -> how does a skill self-evolve safely from real session evidence?
academic-humanizer         -> how do we remove AI-sounding prose without changing its claims?
assess-interview-candidate -> how do we prepare a focused, evidence-bounded human interview?

Task Clarifier Example

A vague request is turned into a checked requirement before the agent recommends anything.

Example: choosing a suitcase

Formatted from a live terminal run. Terminal status lines are omitted.

Turn 1: vague request

User

I want to buy a suitcase, can you tell me which one is the best?

$task-clarifier

Before recommending a product, the skill turns "best" into concrete decision criteria:

  1. Use case — What will you use the suitcase for most?
    • Options: business travel, leisure vacations, extended travel, or custom situation.
    • Recommendation: start with the primary use case, because it changes size, weight, and feature priorities.
  2. Budget — What price range is realistic?
    • Options: under $100, $100-300, $300-600, $600+, or custom budget.
    • Recommendation: $100-300 is often the best durability-to-cost range for most travelers.
  3. Meaning of "best" — Which priority wins?
    • Options: durability, light weight, price, warranty/service, organization, or custom priority.
    • Recommendation: durability is the most universal priority.

User answer

1A 2C 3A

Business travel, $300-600, maximum durability.

Turn 2: narrow the product class

$task-clarifier

The first answers narrow the problem, but two choices still change the recommendation:

  1. Bag type — Carry-on or checked bag?
    • Recommendation: carry-on for most business trips, faster airport flow, and lower damage risk.
  2. Material — Hard shell or soft-sided?
    • Recommendation: hard shell for durability and professional appearance.

User answer

Checked bag, hard shell.

Turn 3: resolve the final size

$task-clarifier

One last decision remains:

  1. Checked-bag size — Compact, medium, or full-size?
    • Recommendation: 26-27 inches handles many business trips without becoming oversized.

User answer

28 inches.

Confirmed requirement

$task-clarifier

You need a checked suitcase for frequent business travel. The bag should be hard-shell for maximum durability and professional appearance, 28 inches for extended trips, and within a $300-600 budget. Durability is your top priority over lighter weight or organizational gimmicks.

Inferences to confirm

  • Durability means repeated airport handling and 5+ years without major failure.
  • Brand, color, wheel type, TSA lock, and warranty length are not yet fixed preferences.
  • The next step is specific model recommendations, unless the user prefers an evaluation framework.

Screenshots

Task forest HTML export:

task-forest tree demo

Live DAG view:

task-forest live DAG view

Task detail view:

task-forest live detail view

User profile and alignment flow:

COMPASS user profile and alignment flow

Ecosystem map:

COMPASS skills ecosystem DAG

Compatibility

COMPASS works across agent runtimes as a SKILL.md package with Markdown instructions, YAML frontmatter, optional references/, optional scripts/, and optional agent metadata.

Agent / environmentRecommended setup
Claude CodeUse npx skills add dongshuyan/compass-skills --skill '*' -a claude-code, or copy the folders under skills/ into Claude Code's custom skills directory.
CodexUse the skills CLI with -a codex when supported by your environment, or use the repo as a local skills source.
OpenCode / OpenClaw / other agentsKeep AGENTS.md and load the matching SKILL.md first, then use references/ and scripts/ as needed.

The scripts use Python standard-library components and run locally. assess-interview-candidate requires Python 3.10 or later and uses capability-based instructions instead of fixed Agent tools or installation paths.

Safety Model

COMPASS keeps runtime data local:

  • No upload of task data or user-profile data.
  • No browser cookie, token, private key, credential, or session extraction.
  • task-forest stores task data under the current workspace, usually .agent-workbench/task-forest/.
  • session-handoff-prompt is read-only by default. It can validate local handoffs with real workspace paths or redact them for shareable handoffs.
  • user-profile-keeper stores local profile data under .compass-skills/user-profiles/v1 by default, or a user-selected COMPASS_USER_PROFILE_HOME.
  • run-history-skill-builder reads only user-authorized workflow history and writes new skill files only to a user-approved local directory.
  • run-history-skill-upgrader is plan-only by default. It can synthesize real session evidence into an upgrade plan automatically, but it enables a controlled self-evolution loop only after explicit approval of a concrete plan.
  • academic-humanizer preserves source claims and locked spans, never invents facts or citations, and uses its Python script only for optional read-only diagnostics.
  • assess-interview-candidate keeps authorized resumes and reports local, excludes contact details and precise addresses from the interviewer view, and prevents age, birthplace, hometown, marital status, or location from entering fit scores or hiring decisions.
  • High-risk actions such as deletion, overwrite, publishing, remote writes, credential use, and global configuration changes require explicit confirmation.

Important: user-profile-keeper uses local plaintext storage without encryption. Do not store passwords, tokens, private keys, verification codes, or highly sensitive personal data in the profile.

See SECURITY.md for the security boundary.

Example Prompts

Clarify a task before execution:

Use $task-clarifier to align the task below.

Task: ...
Material: ...
Constraints: ask user-owned decisions first; infer discoverable facts from files, context, or reliable sources. Ask only questions that change scope, method, evidence, format, safety, or acceptance criteria.
Output: ask 1-3 key questions with recommended answers first; once the core need is clear, restate your understanding in 2-5 lines and ask me to confirm.

Maintain the task forest for a workspace:

Use $task-forest to analyze the current AI conversation and maintain the task forest for this workspace.

Goal: create a task-forest proposal from long-running goals, tasks, progress, deviations, risks, decisions, and follow-ups in this AI conversation.
Requirements:
1. Read the current task-forest list and todo first; initialize task-forest if missing.
2. Identify which long-term goal this AI conversation served. If no relation is clear, ask me or create a question/risk node.
3. Save a proposal and show me the planned changes before applying.
4. After approval, apply, validate, export, and report the HTML path.

Create a continuation prompt for a new AI conversation:

Use $session-handoff-prompt to create a balanced continuation prompt for a new AI conversation.

Goal: let the next AI conversation continue the current task without replaying the whole transcript.
Requirements:
1. Use the current conversation, explicit files I provide, current workspace evidence, and task-forest exports if present.
2. Keep task-forest read-only; do not save proposals or modify the task graph.
3. Use my language for the prompt. Default to Chinese if unknown.
4. Use privacy=local for this machine. If I ask for a public/shareable handoff, redact local paths and credential-like strings first.
5. Put the paste-ready prompt first, then briefly state mode, sources, and limitations.

Representative output shape:

你正在接手一个已经进行过多轮的 AI 对话。请按以下上下文恢复任务状态;如果当前文件或可验证证据与这里冲突,以当前证据为准。

【工作目录】
<workspace>

【用户目标】
把 session-handoff-prompt 作为 COMPASS 的正式 skill 接入,支持 macOS、Linux、Windows 和主流 agent。

【必须遵守的要求】
- [已验证] 内部说明用英文;交互和输出使用用户语言,默认中文。
- [已验证] 不读取 credential、cookie、浏览器 session 或无关私有日志。

【下一步】
1. 更新 README 和 manifest。
2. 运行 smoke test 和安全扫描。
3. 报告验证结果和剩余风险。

Initialize a local user profile:

Use $user-profile-keeper to initialize my local user profile.

Goal: build an auditable, correctable, retractable profile from a local questionnaire or the current context.
Boundaries:
1. Store locally only. Do not upload anything or read browser cookies, tokens, or credentials.
2. Do not save secrets, passwords, private keys, verification codes, or browser-session information.
3. Put inferred, private, sensitive, or conflicting claims into pending proposals for my review.
4. Report what was saved, proposed, skipped, or redacted.

Remove AI-sounding language from academic prose without changing its claims:

Use $academic-humanizer to remove AI-sounding language from the academic passage below.

Preserve every claim, number, citation, comparison, hedge, causal relation, and scope boundary. Keep quotations, formulas, code, references, statistical notation, proper nouns, and requested verbatim text unchanged. Remove only unsupported, vacuous, mechanically repetitive, or process-leaking wording. Return the clean revised passage without an editor preface.

Passage: ...

Prepare a structured candidate interview report:

Use $assess-interview-candidate with the authorized resume and job description I provide.

Requirements: read every page of the PDF through both text extraction and visual inspection; keep the detailed evidence and validation data in the local audit layer; make the interviewer HTML contain only a candidate overview, job-relevant resume uncertainties, and 12-18 directly readable questions. Display candidate-provided schools, employers, and cities without guessing missing facts. Keep age, birthplace, hometown, marital status, and location out of fit scores and hiring decisions. Write only below the local case root I approve.

Validation Status

The public install path has been validated with skills@1.5.11:

  • npx skills add dongshuyan/compass-skills --list finds the released skills.
  • npx skills add dongshuyan/compass-skills --skill '*' -a claude-code --copy -y installs the released skills into a temporary project's .claude/skills/ directory.
  • python3 skills/session-handoff-prompt/scripts/smoke_test_handoff.py --skill-dir skills/session-handoff-prompt validates compacted-event projection, task-forest read-only summaries, local validation, and shareable redaction.
  • printf '%s\n' 'Samples were randomized.' | python3 skills/academic-humanizer/scripts/metrics.py - --json provides read-only descriptive diagnostics for language routing, process leaks, and contrast candidates without assigning an authorship or quality score.
  • With skills@1.5.23, the current local source is detected as eight skills, and assess-interview-candidate copies successfully into temporary Codex and Claude Code skill roots.
  • Its 26 unit and package tests pass on Python 3.11 and 3.14. The package also passes the Skill validator, Ruff, JSON parsing, Python 3.10 syntax parsing, JavaScript syntax checking, offline report validation, and local browser interaction checks.
  • Windows and Linux compatibility is enforced through path, launcher, standard-library, reserved-filename, and shell-neutral contracts. This release was not run on physical Windows or Linux hosts.

Roadmap

Planned additions:

  • Build reusable skills from real task histories.
  • Upgrade existing skills from observed failures, feedback, and validation evidence.
  • Summarize local agent states, waiting-human items, risks, and review queues.
  • Recommend low-switching-cost follow-up tasks from the task graph.

License

MIT. See LICENSE.

Community

  • This repo has been shared as open source on Linux.do.

Star History

Star History Chart
其他

低风险

  • 来源需自行核对维护者身份。
  • 包含脚本或命令调用,安装前请复核。
  • 可能需要外部 token、网络权限或第三方服务。
  • 未检测到高风险命令。
  • 扫描发现:0 条。

Codex — Git Clone 安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 克隆仓库:git clone https://github.com/dongshuyan/compass-skills.git
  3. 将 "skills/academic-humanizer" 文件夹复制到 Codex 的 skills 目录中。
  4. 重启 Codex 让新的 skill 生效。

Codex — 手动复制安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 从源仓库下载 SKILL.md 及相关文件。
  3. 在 Codex 的 skills 目录中创建新文件夹。
  4. 将所有 skill 文件复制到新文件夹中。
  5. 重启 Codex 让新的 skill 生效。

Claude Code — Git Clone 安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 克隆仓库:git clone https://github.com/dongshuyan/compass-skills.git
  3. 将 "skills/academic-humanizer" 文件夹复制到 Claude Code 的 skills 目录中。
  4. 重启 Claude Code 让新的 skill 生效。

Claude Code — 手动复制安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 从源仓库下载 SKILL.md 及相关文件。
  3. 在 Claude Code 的 skills 目录中创建新文件夹。
  4. 将所有 skill 文件复制到新文件夹中。
  5. 重启 Claude Code 让新的 skill 生效。

Cursor — Git Clone 安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 克隆仓库:git clone https://github.com/dongshuyan/compass-skills.git
  3. 将 "skills/academic-humanizer" 文件夹复制到 Cursor 的 skills 目录中。
  4. 重启 Cursor 让新的 skill 生效。

Cursor — 手动复制安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 从源仓库下载 SKILL.md 及相关文件。
  3. 在 Cursor 的 skills 目录中创建新文件夹。
  4. 将所有 skill 文件复制到新文件夹中。
  5. 重启 Cursor 让新的 skill 生效。

GitHub Copilot — Git Clone 安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 克隆仓库:git clone https://github.com/dongshuyan/compass-skills.git
  3. 将 "skills/academic-humanizer" 文件夹复制到 GitHub Copilot 的 skills 目录中。
  4. 重启 GitHub Copilot 让新的 skill 生效。

GitHub Copilot — 手动复制安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 从源仓库下载 SKILL.md 及相关文件。
  3. 在 GitHub Copilot 的 skills 目录中创建新文件夹。
  4. 将所有 skill 文件复制到新文件夹中。
  5. 重启 GitHub Copilot 让新的 skill 生效。

Windsurf — Git Clone 安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 克隆仓库:git clone https://github.com/dongshuyan/compass-skills.git
  3. 将 "skills/academic-humanizer" 文件夹复制到 Windsurf 的 skills 目录中。
  4. 重启 Windsurf 让新的 skill 生效。

Windsurf — 手动复制安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 从源仓库下载 SKILL.md 及相关文件。
  3. 在 Windsurf 的 skills 目录中创建新文件夹。
  4. 将所有 skill 文件复制到新文件夹中。
  5. 重启 Windsurf 让新的 skill 生效。
查看 SKILL.md 原文
name: academic-humanizer
description: >-
  Draft, audit, or minimally revise English- or Chinese-language academic prose
  to reduce formulaic, vacuous, mechanically repetitive, or process-leaking
  language while preserving claims, evidence strength, logical relations,
  manuscript-wide terminology identity, document-level pattern variation, and
  scholarly register. Use for papers, abstracts, grants, cover letters, and
  reviewer responses when the user asks to de-AI, humanize, audit AI-like
  phrasing, or rewrite text without changing meaning. English is primary;
  Chinese is supported. Not for detector evasion, policy circumvention, pure
  translation, non-academic copy, or adding facts, citations, examples, or
  author experiences that the source does not contain.

Academic Humanizer

Improve academic prose by removing observable writing defects, not by imitating imperfection or optimizing an authorship detector. Preserve the author's facts, argument, uncertainty, and disciplinary voice. This skill does not guarantee how any reader or detector will classify a text.

Portability

This skill is agent-agnostic. Its core behavior is defined by SKILL.md and references/; Python is optional and supports reproducible diagnostics.

  • Resolve <skill-dir> from the directory containing this SKILL.md.
  • Let <python> mean an available Python 3 launcher, such as python3, py -3, or python.
  • Let <input-file> mean a user-authorized local text file. Quote paths that contain spaces and use the host shell's path separator.
  • Do not assume a fixed skill root, home directory, shell, operating system, agent name, or path separator.
  • agents/openai.yaml is optional interface metadata. Core behavior does not depend on a particular agent runtime.
  • If Python is unavailable, skip the scripts and apply the same contracts directly.

Load the operating references

Read these before drafting or editing:

  1. Semantic contract for claim preservation, locked spans, deletion safety, and the internal claim ledger.
  2. Terminology contract for canonical terms, declared aliases, coined names, intentional distinctions, and the internal terminology ledger. Always load it for multi-span or manuscript-level work.
  3. Global pattern contract for the local-to-document audit, distribution map, scope limits, and whole-document repair. Always load it for multi-sentence work.
  4. Academic whitelist for protected scholarly forms in both languages.
  5. Contrast logic for false-opposition triage in English and Chinese. Always load it; this is a cross-language semantic rule.
  6. Route once by the majority language of editable prose, then read exactly one: English rules or Chinese rules.

Read worked examples on first use, after changing a rule, or whenever fact preservation, contrast, or over-correction is uncertain. Read metrics specification before running scripts/metrics.py; its output is descriptive evidence only.

Supported operations

  • generate: draft from user-supplied claims, outline, data, and sources.
  • detect: identify high-confidence defects without rewriting.
  • rewrite: minimally revise supplied prose; this is the default when the user asks to de-AI or humanize text.
  • edit: apply the same minimal revisions to a named file.

Do not create another routing tree for paper section or discipline. Methods, Results, Discussion, reviewer responses, and grants use the same contracts; the whitelist handles legitimate register differences. Ask one direct question only when the requested genre changes what counts as acceptable and context does not resolve it.

Language route

Route on editable prose, excluding fenced code, formulas, block quotations, and a trailing reference list. Use orthographic tokens: each CJK character is one token and each contiguous Latin word is one token. This keeps embedded terms such as Transformer or ImageNet from outweighing the Chinese sentence around them:

r = CJK tokens / (CJK tokens + Latin word tokens)

  • r >= 0.5: Chinese branch.
  • r < 0.5: English branch.
  • No countable prose: stop and ask for text or an intended output language.

English terms in Chinese prose and Chinese terms in English prose remain verbatim. If Python is available and the route is genuinely unclear, optionally run <python> "<skill-dir>/scripts/metrics.py" "<input-file>" --route. Routing is internal and never appears in the clean artifact.

Single arbitration order

Earlier rows win. References may elaborate this table but must not define a second priority order.

PriorityConstraintOperational meaning
C0Artifact boundaryProcess instructions, editor narration, and tool residue never enter the artifact. C0 applies only to process-layer text; it never authorizes deletion of real content.
C1Semantic fidelityEvery output claim maps to the source bundle; every material source claim remains represented. No added facts, relations, examples, citations, motivations, or limitations.
C2Locked-span protectionQuotations, formulas, code, references, citation keys, statistical notation, proper nouns, and requested verbatim text remain unchanged.
C3Terminology identityOne scientific concept uses one canonical term across the editable manuscript. Preserve declared full-name/abbreviation pairs, necessary grammatical forms, and intentional distinctions; never infer identity from similarity alone.
C4Academic registerPreserve functional hedging, passive voice, nominalization, discourse markers, and Chinese scholarly morphology.
C5Argument structurePreserve causal strength, contrast, concession, addition, chronology, scope, and paragraph-level reasoning. Surface connectives may change when the relation survives.
C6Document patterningAudit recurrence, clustering, dispersion, positional regularity, sentence rhythm, and rhetorical-function saturation across the complete editable scope. A count is evidence, never a verdict.
C7Local style repairApply language-specific rules only to locally unsupported, vacuous, mechanical, or stacked defects.

Examples of conflict resolution:

  • A style rule suggests adding a number, mechanism, baseline, or limitation that is absent from the source: C1 blocks the addition.
  • A leak and a result share one sentence: C0 removes only the process phrase; C1 and C5 preserve the result and its relation to adjacent sentences.
  • A coined method name drifts across the abstract, body, and caption: C3 restores the canonical term after C1 and C2 confirm that the referent and spans permit it.
  • A passive sentence is conventional in Methods: C4 blocks stylistic activation.
  • A contrast pattern is present but its two concrete claims lack surrounding evidence: C1 blocks automatic deletion; mark it uncertain in diagnostic output.
  • One dash, triad, connective, or emphatic sentence has a clear function: C4-C6 protect it. Repeated functionless instances may activate C6 after a distribution audit, while C1-C5 still constrain every repair.

Workflow

1. Read the complete editable scope

Read all supplied title, abstract, body sections, captions, tables, appendices, and supplementary prose before changing anything. Identify which parts are editable and which are evidence or protected context. Separate content requirements from style/process instructions. For generation, treat only supplied claims, data, citations, and explicitly marked hypotheticals as content.

2. Lock spans and build the evidence and terminology ledgers

Apply the semantic and terminology contracts. Build the claim/evidence ledger with source-to-output mappings and provenance status for:

  • numbers, units, entities, citations, datasets, methods, and study design;
  • negation, comparison direction and baseline;
  • association, causation, prediction, and attribution;
  • modality, uncertainty, limitations, population, time, and scope.

The editable draft establishes what the author currently says; it does not by itself prove that a cited paper, result, quotation, or factual premise exists. Mark unsupported evidence assertions as draft-only and preserve or flag them instead of silently treating them as verified or extending the argument from them.

Build a separate terminology ledger for scientific concepts, especially newly coined methods, modules, losses, metrics, datasets, and task names. Record:

  • concept_id, canonical_term, and the span that defines or first formally names the concept;
  • declared allowed_forms, including full-name/abbreviation pairs and necessary grammatical or bilingual mappings;
  • observed_variants, distinguish_from, and resolution status.

Use explicit user terminology first, then formal definitions, then the first unambiguous formal naming. Frequency alone never selects the canonical term. Keep both ledgers internal unless the user asks for an audit trail.

3. Run the local candidate pass

  1. Find process leakage and tool residue.
  2. Audit terminology across the complete editable scope. Classify each apparent variation as declared form, same-concept drift, intentional distinction, protected mention, or uncertain identity.
  3. Triage contrast candidates as protected, unsupported rhetorical, or uncertain using contrast-logic.md.
  4. Apply the routed language rules to identify candidates with three questions:
    • Load: does the wording carry a claim or logical relation?
    • Support: can each claim be traced to the source bundle?
    • Patterning: is the defect mechanical, vacuous, or reinforced by other signals in the same span?

A lone word or sentence form is not enough to infer authorship or poor quality. It can still be a local defect when it adds an unsupported claim, false relation, or empty evaluation. Multiple weak signals in one span form one finding, not several duplicate findings.

4. Build the distribution map and run the global pass

For multi-sentence input, map candidates by section, paragraph, sentence, position, and rhetorical function using global-pattern-contract.md. Inspect:

  • sentence-initial discourse markers and punctuation such as dashes;
  • contrast scaffolds, parallel triads, flat enumeration, and exhaustive listing;
  • repeated sentence/paragraph templates and recurring paragraph closures;
  • sentence-length sequence and rhythm within each functional section;
  • unsupported certainty, elevation, and aphoristic peak saturation.

Use within-document evidence and section function; never apply a universal count or ratio. A distribution map supports findings only about the supplied editable scope; an excerpt cannot support a whole-manuscript judgment. Optional metrics produce a distribution map, not an authorship or quality judgment.

5. Classify before editing

Classify each finding as local defect, distributional defect, functional/protected, or uncertain. A distributional defect requires both repetition or positional regularity and redundant rhetorical function. Several valid ablation contrasts, method steps, reported metrics, or theorem consequences remain protected even when their surface forms repeat.

6. Make the smallest coherent edit

  • Remove process-layer text while retaining any content in the same sentence.
  • Normalize confirmed same-concept drift to the ledger's canonical term across every editable occurrence, including captions and tables. Preserve declared abbreviations and grammatical forms; do not replace protected mentions.
  • Keep terms separate when they name distinct concepts. If identity is uncertain, preserve the text and ask or flag it outside the clean artifact.
  • Prefer subtraction or direct wording when a phrase carries no proposition.
  • Use concrete material only when it already exists in the source.
  • Preserve both claims in additive forms such as not only X but also Y when X and Y are supported; removing the construction must not remove either claim.
  • Preserve or flag concrete negative claims when evidence is insufficient to decide whether the contrast is real. Do not silently erase them.
  • Repair the document as a system: remove redundant scaffolding, retain each supported proposition and relation, and vary syntax only when argument function warrants it. Do not randomize sentence length or replace one repeated template with another repeated template.
  • Reorganize flat enumeration only when the source already supplies a hierarchy. Never invent categories merely to make a list appear elegant.
  • Preserve an unverified citation or evidence claim in rewrite/edit mode and flag it outside the artifact; do not strengthen it or use it to generate new claims.
  • Leave already competent prose unchanged.

7. Run the whole-manuscript terminology gate

Scan all editable sections together after revision. Every scientific concept must use its canonical term or a declared allowed form. Verify that coined names are unchanged after their formal introduction, captions and tables match the body, bilingual mappings are declared, and distinct concepts remain distinct. Any unresolved identity is a stop/flag result, not an automatic normalization.

8. Run the whole-document pattern gate

Rebuild the distribution map after editing. Check that redundant clusters, mechanical paragraph templates, uniform rhetorical peaks, and unsupported certainty were resolved without erasing functional repetition or creating a new dominant pattern. If the supplied scope is shorter than the claimed scope, report the limitation and do not claim a whole-manuscript pass.

9. Run the second-pass semantic and style gate

Re-read source and output side by side. The output fails if any answer is no:

  1. Does every output claim map to the source bundle?
  2. Does every material source claim remain?
  3. Are numbers, negation, modality, causal strength, baseline, attribution, and scope unchanged?
  4. Are locked spans byte-for-byte unchanged?
  5. Does the terminology ledger show one canonical term per concept, with only declared forms and intentional distinctions remaining?
  6. Are cited evidence, quotations, and factual premises supported by supplied or verified sources, or explicitly marked draft-only outside the artifact?
  7. Did the edit preserve academic register and logical relations?
  8. Did the whole-document pattern gate pass without threshold chasing?
  9. Is the artifact free of process labels, editor narration, placeholders filled by guesswork, and tool residue?
  10. Would a zero-edit result have been more accurate? If yes, restore the source.

Run metrics only as an optional residual scan. A metric never overrides this gate.

Output contract

  • generate / rewrite: return the clean artifact by default, with no routing line, score, checklist, leak line, or editor preface.
  • detect: return findings grouped by severity and scope (local or distributional). Each finding includes an exact source quote, rule ID, location/distribution evidence, reason, and one of change, keep, or uncertain.
  • edit: edit only the requested file, then summarize changes outside it.
  • Provide diagnostics after the artifact only when the user explicitly asks for them. Clearly separate diagnostics from text intended for the manuscript.
  • Use verified counts only. Never invent a count or aesthetic grade.

Stop conditions

Stop and ask instead of guessing when:

  • the requested rewrite requires a missing fact, citation, comparison, or source;
  • a concrete contrast cannot be validated from the available context;
  • the requested generation, verification, or downstream conclusion depends on a citation, result, quotation, or factual premise whose existence or provenance cannot be established from the source bundle;
  • two labels may refer to the same scientific concept but the manuscript does not establish their identity, or no canonical term can be grounded;
  • the input is mostly a protected quotation, formula, or reference list;
  • the user requests a whole-document judgment but supplies only an excerpt;
  • the requested language is neither English nor Chinese;
  • the request seeks detector evasion or circumvention of a disclosure policy.

Do not invent specifics, personal experience, citations, data, mechanisms, baselines, or limitations to make prose sound more human. Do not casualize academic writing merely to make it look less generated.

发现问题?提交给管理员复核

评分:

评论 (0)

暂无评论,成为第一个评论者吧!