writing-editor

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Writing Editor

写作编辑器

Edit prose using a top-down workflow with human review at each level. Works for any nonfiction genre — academic papers, reports, memos, essays, blog posts, proposals.

采用自上而下的工作流编辑散文，每个层级都需经过人工审核。适用于所有非虚构类文体——学术论文、报告、备忘录、随笔、博客文章、提案。

Project Integration

项目集成

This skill reads from

project.yaml

when available:

yaml

undefined

当

project.yaml

文件存在时，该技能会读取其中的内容：

yaml

undefined

From project.yaml

paths: drafts: drafts/sections/


**Project type:** This skill works for **all project types**. Prose editing improves writing regardless of methodology.

paths: drafts: drafts/sections/


**项目类型：** 该技能适用于**所有项目类型**。无论采用何种方法论，散文编辑都能提升写作质量。

File Management

文件管理

This skill uses git to track progress across phases. Before modifying any output file at a new phase:

Stage and commit current state:

git add [files] && git commit -m "writing-editor: Pre-editing snapshot"

Then proceed with modifications.

Do NOT create version-suffixed copies (e.g.,

-v2

-final

-working

). The git history serves as the version trail.

此技能使用git跟踪各阶段的进度。在新阶段修改任何输出文件之前：

暂存并提交当前状态：

git add [files] && git commit -m "writing-editor: Pre-editing snapshot"

然后再进行修改。

请勿创建带版本后缀的副本（如

-v2

、

-final

、

-working

）。git历史记录将作为版本追踪依据。

Workflow: Four Levels with Checkpoints

工作流：带审核节点的四个层级

Work through each level, presenting proposed changes for user approval before moving to the next.

依次完成每个层级的编辑，在进入下一层级前需提交修改方案供用户批准。

Step 0: Document Protection

步骤0：文档保护

Before making any edits:

Check if the file is in a git repo; if not, offer to
```
git init
```

Commit the original state before any edits:

git add [file] && git commit -m "writing-editor: Pre-editing snapshot"

After each level's approved changes, commit with a message like:
```
"Writing editor: Level 1 (Document) complete"
```

This creates a full revision history the user can diff or revert. The input file IS the output — edit it in place. Do not create a working copy or a separate output file.

在进行任何编辑之前：

检查文件是否位于git仓库中；若未在仓库中，可提供
```
git init
```
初始化服务

提交原始状态的文件：

git add [file] && git commit -m "writing-editor: Pre-editing snapshot"

每个层级的修改获得批准后，提交时使用类似如下的信息：
```
"Writing editor: Level 1 (Document) complete"
```

这样可以生成完整的修订历史，用户可进行对比或回滚操作。输入文件即为输出文件——直接在原文件上编辑。请勿创建工作副本或单独的输出文件。

Levels with Checkpoints

带审核节点的层级

Level	What to Fix	Checkpoint
1. Document	Structure, hooks, titles, abstracts, citations	User approves before continuing
2. Paragraph	Symmetry, triplets, endings, contrast patterns	User approves before continuing
3. Sentence	Passive voice, agents, abstract nouns, meta-commentary, em/en dashes	User approves before continuing
4. Word	Adverbs, signposts, throat-clearing, fancy-talk	User approves final version

This ensures the user stays in control and can accept/reject changes at each stage.

层级	修正内容	审核节点
1. 文档	结构、开篇钩子、标题、摘要、引用	获得用户批准后再继续
2. 段落	对称性、三元结构、结尾、对比模式	获得用户批准后再继续
3. 句子	被动语态、主体、抽象名词、元评论、破折号使用	获得用户批准后再继续
4. 词汇	副词、引导词、冗余铺垫、浮夸表达	获得用户批准后最终版本

这确保用户始终掌控编辑过程，可在每个阶段接受或拒绝修改。

Quick Start

快速开始

/writing-editor

Please edit: /path/to/draft.md

Or with pasted text:

/writing-editor

Here's a draft that sounds too formal: [paste text]

/writing-editor

请编辑：/path/to/draft.md

或粘贴文本：

/writing-editor

这是一篇过于正式的草稿：[粘贴文本]

Primary Reference

主要参考资料

Use

references/merged-guidelines.md

as the main editing guide. It consolidates all rules organized by level:

Level 1: Document (6 rules) - hooks, titles, structure, abstracts, citations, concrete examples
Level 2: Paragraph (5 rules) - endings, symmetry, triplets, contrast, syntax-logic match
Level 3: Sentence (13 rules) - passive voice, first person, abstract nouns, placeholders, agents
Level 4: Word (7 rules) - throat-clearing, signposts, adverbs, intensifiers, fancy-talk

将

references/merged-guidelines.md

作为主要编辑指南。它整合了按层级划分的所有规则：

层级1：文档（6条规则）- 开篇钩子、标题、结构、摘要、引用、具体示例
层级2：段落（5条规则）- 结尾、对称性、三元结构、对比、语法逻辑匹配
层级3：句子（13条规则）- 被动语态、第一人称、抽象名词、占位符、主体
层级4：词汇（7条规则）- 冗余铺垫、引导词、副词、强化词、浮夸表达

Additional References

补充参考资料

For deeper context or source-specific guidance:

File	Source
`references/guidelines.md`	LLM-specific patterns (15 rules)
`references/becker-guidelines.md`	Becker's Writing for Social Scientists (12 rules)
`references/sword-guidelines.md`	Sword's Stylish Academic Writing (14 rules)
`references/phrase-transformations.md`	Common phrase before/after examples

如需更深入的背景信息或特定来源的指导：

文件	来源
`references/guidelines.md`	LLM特定生成模式（15条规则）
`references/becker-guidelines.md`	Becker所著《社会科学家写作指南》（12条规则）
`references/sword-guidelines.md`	Sword所著《学术写作风格指南》（14条规则）
`references/phrase-transformations.md`	常见短语修改前后示例

Core Method: Deletion Test

核心方法：删除测试

At every level, apply Becker's test: Remove each word or phrase. If meaning doesn't change, delete it.

在每个层级，应用Becker测试：移除每个单词或短语。如果意思没有变化，就将其删除。

Level 1: Document

层级1：文档

Before touching sentences, fix:

Opening hook: Does it grab attention or start with a bland formula?
Title: Short and unified, or bloated with variables and colons?
Structure: Do section headings match what the opening promises?
Abstract/summary: Active voice with humans and claims, or passive hedging? (Skip if genre has no abstract.)
Citations/references: Do they advance the argument or just signal allegiance? (Adjust for genre — academic papers cite; memos and blog posts may not.)
Concrete examples: Is each major concept grounded in specifics?

Present document-level changes. Wait for user approval.

在修改句子之前，先修正以下内容：

开篇钩子：它能否吸引注意力，还是以平淡的套话开头？
标题：简洁统一，还是堆砌变量和冒号显得臃肿？
结构：章节标题是否与开篇内容一致？
摘要/概述：是否使用主动语态，明确主体和观点，还是采用被动语态含糊其辞？（若文体无摘要要求可跳过）
引用/参考文献：是否用于推进论证，还是仅为表明立场？（根据文体调整——学术论文需要引用；备忘录和博客文章可能无需引用）
具体示例：每个核心概念是否都有具体实例支撑？

提交文档层级的修改方案，等待用户批准。

Level 2: Paragraph

层级2：段落

After document structure is sound:

Paragraph endings: Do they moralize ("Together, these underscore...") or just stop?
Symmetry: Do three paragraphs start the same way?
Triplets: Ornamental lists of three that could be two? (Keep conceptual triplets like "race, class, and gender")
Over-balanced contrast: "Not X, but Y" that could be one clause?
Syntax-logic match: Does grammar show which ideas are subordinate?

Present paragraph-level changes. Wait for user approval.

文档结构确定后：

段落结尾：是否进行空洞总结（如“综上所述，这些内容强调了……”），还是自然收尾？
对称性：是否有三个段落以相同方式开头？
三元结构：是否存在可简化为两项的装饰性三元列表？（保留概念性三元结构，如“种族、阶级和性别”）
过度平衡的对比：是否存在可简化为单一句子的“不是X，而是Y”结构？
语法逻辑匹配：语法结构是否能体现观点的主次关系？

提交段落层级的修改方案，等待用户批准。

Level 3: Sentence

层级3：句子

After paragraphs are structured:

Passive voice: "Data were collected" → "We collected data"
First person: Use I/we for methods and claims
Abstract nouns: "The investigation of" → "We investigated"
Placeholders: "complex relation" → specify the actual relation
Deictic pronouns: "This shows" → "This finding shows"
There is/are: "There is evidence" → "Evidence shows"
Subject-verb distance: Keep within 12 words
Vivid verbs: Replace weak verbs with specific action
Dead metaphors: Cut "cutting edge," "shed light on"
Meta-commentary: Cut sentences about process/intent
Grand evaluations: Replace abstract praise with observable effects
Over-justification: Allow judgment without explaining every reason
Em/en dashes: Rewrite the sentence—don't just swap for commas. Split into two sentences, fold the aside into the main clause, use a colon, reposition the aside, or drop it. Offer multiple options.

Present sentence-level changes. Wait for user approval.

段落结构确定后：

被动语态：“Data were collected” → “We collected data”
第一人称：在描述方法和表达观点时使用I/we
抽象名词：“The investigation of” → “We investigated”
占位符：“complex relation” → 明确具体的关系
指示代词：“This shows” → “This finding shows”
There is/are结构：“There is evidence” → “Evidence shows”
主谓距离：控制在12个单词以内
生动动词：用具体的动作动词替换弱动词
陈腐隐喻：删除“cutting edge”、“shed light on”等表达
元评论：删除关于写作过程/意图的句子
笼统评价：用可观察的效果替换抽象赞美
过度解释：允许直接表达判断，无需事事说明理由
破折号：改写句子——不要仅替换为逗号。可拆分为两个句子、将插入语融入主句、使用冒号、调整插入语位置或直接删除。提供多种修改选项。

提交句子层级的修改方案，等待用户批准。

Level 4: Word

层级4：词汇

Final polish:

Throat-clearing: "It is important to..." → [delete]
Signposts: "Importantly," "Overall," → [delete]
Evaluative adverbs: "convincingly demonstrates" → "demonstrates"
Empty intensifiers: "reasonably comprehensive" → "comprehensive"
Ability phrases: "managed to maintain" → "kept"
Fancy-talk: "predicated upon" → "depends on"
Excessive praise: "thoughtful, rigorous, and sophisticated" → "careful"

Present word-level changes. Wait for user approval.

最终润色：

冗余铺垫：“It is important to...” → [删除]
引导词：“Importantly,”、“Overall,” → [删除]
评价性副词：“convincingly demonstrates” → “demonstrates”
空洞强化词：“reasonably comprehensive” → “comprehensive”
能力短语：“managed to maintain” → “kept”
浮夸表达：“predicated upon” → “depends on”
过度赞美：“thoughtful, rigorous, and sophisticated” → “careful”

提交词汇层级的修改方案，等待用户批准。

Output

输出

After all levels approved, the edited file IS the output — it was edited in place. Commit the final state:

git add [file] && git commit -m "writing-editor: Level 4 (Word) complete"

For pasted text (no file), write the final edited text to

edited-[timestamp].md

Include a brief summary of changes at each level in the conversation.

所有层级的修改获得批准后，编辑后的文件即为输出文件——直接在原文件上完成编辑。提交最终状态：

git add [file] && git commit -m "writing-editor: Level 4 (Word) complete"

。

对于粘贴的文本（无对应文件），将最终编辑后的文本保存至

edited-[timestamp].md

。

在对话中简要总结每个层级的修改内容。

Calibration

校准

Goal: Prose that sounds specific, slightly uneven, and willing to assert judgments without narrating its own cleverness.

Not the goal: Perfect prose. Functional prose is human. Allow mild awkwardness.

Genre awareness: Detect the genre from the input and respect its conventions. Academic papers keep citations and hedging where warranted. Memos stay short. Blog posts can be conversational. Reports keep structure tight. Don't flatten genre differences — adapt the rules to the context.

Final test: Read aloud. If it sounds like a report when it should be an essay, or a template when it should be a memo — keep editing.

目标：文本应具体、略有起伏，能够明确表达观点，而无需刻意炫耀写作技巧。

非目标：追求完美的文本。实用的文本应具有人情味。允许存在轻微的不流畅。

文体意识：根据输入内容判断文体，并尊重其惯例。学术论文需保留必要的引用和谨慎表述。备忘录应简洁。博客文章可采用口语化风格。报告需保持结构严谨。不要抹平文体差异——根据上下文调整规则。