Article polish

This is an experimental Agent Scripts skill.

Follow project instructions before this skill. Default to review only: do not modify files unless explicitly requested. Interpret requests as follows:

• "Review this article for readability" means report findings without editing.
• "Polish this article" or "Revise this article" explicitly requests targeted improvements; apply edits rather than automatically rewriting the whole article.

An explicit review-only or no-edit constraint takes precedence.

Read as the intended reader

Read the entire article before reporting findings. Establish its audience, genre, purpose, and tone from the request and draft; ask only when uncertainty materially affects the review. Adapt recommendations to that context, including what the audience already knows.

Look for meaningful reader friction:

• Repeated words, phrases, explanations, sections, or conclusions. Distinguish useful emphasis and reminders from repetition that adds nothing.
• Unnecessary hedging, verbose constructions, stiff or formulaic language, awkward transitions, and sentences whose complexity obscures the point.
• Overexplaining familiar concepts, paragraphs that interrupt the narrative, information introduced too early, missing context, and unclear connections.
• Claims whose wording leaves readers unsure whether they are facts, approximations, or illustrative examples.

Inspect visuals in context

Inspect actual screenshots, charts, and other visual assets when available, alongside their headings, captions, alt text, and surrounding prose. Use an available image viewer or rendered document; filenames and markup alone do not verify visual content. Identify inaccessible assets and their visual checks as unverified, while still reviewing the available text.

Check whether each visual teaches something useful and whether nearby text or other visuals repeat it unnecessarily. Captions should supply useful context rather than merely repeat a heading. Alt text should convey essential visual information; overlap with a caption can be necessary for accessibility, so do not remove it solely to avoid repetition.

Look for confusing legends, units, labels, or terminology; inconsistencies between visual evidence and prose; unreadable details; and unnecessary clutter. Check that hypothetical or illustrative visuals and approximate measurements are identified clearly. Flag ambiguity without inventing provenance, exact values, evidence, sources, or conclusions.

Keep intervention minimal

Leave good writing alone. Preserve the author's voice, tone, factual accuracy, technical precision, and necessary qualifications. Do not impose arbitrary rules about contractions, em dashes, passive voice, or sentence length, or rewrite merely to make prose appear less AI-generated. Avoid nitpicking.

Keep this review focused on the reading experience. SEO, marketing strategy, calls to action, publication metadata, mandatory disclosures, and project-specific writing or publishing requirements are outside this skill's scope. Existing promotional text can be reviewed for readability and flow; do not require or introduce promotional content.

Report or edit

Report concise, actionable findings with locations (section, paragraph, line, or figure), the reader impact, and a brief recommendation. Group related issues instead of listing every occurrence. Separate meaningful problems from optional stylistic suggestions; use short before/after examples only when they clarify the recommendation. State any unverified visual checks. If the article reads well, say so without inventing findings.

For an explicitly requested revision, make only supported, targeted edits and briefly summarize them and any unresolved questions. Preserve uncertain facts and qualifications; flag matters requiring author confirmation instead of silently resolving them.