Draft Polisher (Audit-style editing)

Goal: turn a first-pass draft into readable survey prose without breaking the evidence contract.

This is a local polish pass: de-template + coherence + terminology + redundancy pruning.

Note: if the main issue is structural redundancy from section accumulation, push the change upstream to

sections/

and use

paragraph-curator

before merge.

draft-polisher

should not be the primary place where you decide which paragraphs to keep.

Role cards (use explicitly)

Style Harmonizer (editor)

Mission: remove generator voice and make prose read like one author wrote it.

Do:

Delete narration openers and slide navigation; replace with argument bridges.
Vary rhythm; remove repeated template stems.
Collapse repeated disclaimers into one front-matter methodology paragraph.

Avoid:

Adding or removing citation keys.
Moving citations across subsections.

Evidence Contract Guard (skeptic)

Mission: prevent polishing from inflating claims beyond evidence.

Do:

Keep quantitative statements scoped (task/metric/constraint) or weaken them.
Treat missing evidence as a failure signal; route upstream rather than rewriting around gaps.

Avoid:

Overconfident language when evidence is abstract-only.

Role prompt: Style Harmonizer (editor expert)

text

You are the style and coherence editor for a technical survey.

Your goal is to make the draft read like one careful author wrote it, without changing the evidence contract.

Hard constraints:
- do not add/remove citation keys
- do not move citations across ### subsections
- do not strengthen claims beyond what existing citations support

High-leverage edits:
- delete generator voice (This subsection..., Next we move..., We now turn...)
- replace navigation with argument bridges (content-bearing handoffs)
- collapse repeated disclaimers into one methodology paragraph in front matter
- keep quantitative statements well-scoped (task/metric/constraint in the same sentence)

Working style:
- rewrite sentences so they carry content, not process
- vary rhythm, but avoid “template stems” repeating across H3s

Inputs

```
output/DRAFT.md
```

Optional context (read-only; helps avoid “polish drift”):

```
outline/outline.yml
```
```
outline/subsection_briefs.jsonl
```
```
outline/evidence_drafts.jsonl
```
```
citations/ref.bib
```

Outputs

```
output/DRAFT.md
```
(in-place refinement)
```
output/citation_anchors.prepolish.jsonl
```
(baseline, generated on first run by the script)

Non-negotiables (hard rules)

Citation keys are immutable

Do not add new
```
[@BibKey]
```
keys.
Do not delete citation markers.
If
```
citations/ref.bib
```
exists, do not introduce any key that is not defined there.

Citation anchoring is immutable

Do not move citations across
```
###
```
subsections.
If you must restructure across subsections, stop and push the change upstream (outline/briefs/evidence), then regenerate.

No evidence inflation

If a sentence sounds stronger than the evidence level (abstract-only), rewrite it into a qualified statement.
When in doubt, check the subsection’s evidence pack in
```
outline/evidence_drafts.jsonl
```
and keep claims aligned to snippets.

Citation shape normalization

Merge adjacent citation blocks in the same sentence (avoid
```
[@a] [@b]
```
).
Deduplicate keys inside one block (avoid
```
[@a; @a]
```
).
Avoid tail-only citation dumps: keep some citations in the claim sentence itself (mid-sentence), not only paragraph end.

Quantitative claim hygiene

If you keep a number, ensure the sentence also states (without guessing): task type + metric definition + relevant constraint (budget/cost/tool access), and the citation is embedded in that sentence.
Avoid ambiguous model naming (e.g., “GPT-5”) unless the cited paper uses that exact label; otherwise use the paper’s naming or a neutral description.

No pipeline voice

Remove scaffolding phrases like:
- “We use the following working claim …”
- “The main axes we track are …”
- “abstracts are treated as verification targets …”
- “Method note (evidence policy): …” (avoid labels; rewrite as plain survey methodology)
- “this run is …” (rewrite as survey methodology: “This survey is …”)
- “Scope and definitions / Design space / Evaluation practice …”
- “Next, we move from …”
- “We now turn to …”
- “From <X> to <Y>, ...” (title narration; rewrite as an argument bridge)
- “In the next section/subsection …”
- “Therefore/As a result, survey synthesis/comparisons should …” (rewrite as literature-facing observation)
Also remove generator-like thesis openers that read like outline narration:
- “This subsection surveys …”
- “This subsection argues …”

Three passes (recommended)

Pass 1 — Subsection polish (structure + de-template)

Best-of-2 micro-polish (recommended):

For any sentence/paragraph you touch, draft 2 candidate rewrites, then keep the better one.
Choose with a simple rubric: move clarity, no template stem, citations stay anchored, and citation shape stays reader-facing (no adjacent cite blocks / dup keys).
Do not keep both candidates. Pick one and move on (the goal is convergence, not endless rewriting).

Role split:

Editor: rewrite sentences for clarity and flow.
Skeptic: deletes any generic/template sentence.

Targets:

Each H3 reads like: tension → contrast → evidence → limitation.
Remove repeated “disclaimer paragraphs”; keep evidence-policy in one place (prefer a single paragraph in Introduction or Related Work phrased as survey methodology, not as pipeline/execution logs).
Use
```
outline/outline.yml
```
(if present) to avoid heading drift during edits.
If present, use
```
outline/subsection_briefs.jsonl
```
to keep each H3’s scope/RQ consistent while improving flow.
Do a quick “pattern sweep” (semantic, not mechanical):
- delete outline narration:
```
This subsection ...
```
  ,
```
In this subsection ...
```
- delete slide navigation:
```
Next, we move from ...
```
  ,
```
We now turn to ...
```
  ,
```
In the next section ...
```
- delete title narration:
```
From <X> to <Y>, ...
```
- replace with: content claims + argument bridges + organization sentences (no new facts/citations)
If
```
citation-injector
```
was used, smooth any budget-injection sentences so they read paper-like:
- Keep the citation keys unchanged.
- Avoid list-injection stems (e.g., “A few representative references include …”, “Notable lines of work include …”, “Concrete examples ... include ...”).
- Prefer integrating the added citations into an existing argument sentence, or rewrite as a short parenthetical
```
e.g., ...
```
  clause tied to the subsection’s lens (no new facts).
- Vary phrasing; avoid repeating the same opener stem across many H3s.
Tone: keep it calm and academic; remove hype words and repeated opener labels (e.g., literal
```
Key takeaway:
```
across many H3s).
Reduce repeated synthesis stems (e.g., many paragraphs starting with
```
Taken together, ...
```
); vary synthesis phrasing and keep it content-bearing.
- Treat repeated "Taken together," as a generator-voice smell. If it appears more than twice (or clusters in one chapter), rewrite to vary phrasing and keep each synthesis sentence content-specific.
- Vary synthesis openings: "In summary," "Across these studies," "The pattern that emerges," "A key insight," "Collectively," "The evidence suggests," or directly state the conclusion without a synthesis marker.
- Each synthesis opening should be content-specific, not a template label.

Rewrite recipe for subsection openers (paper voice, no new facts):

Delete:

This subsection surveys/argues...

In this subsection, we...

Replace with a compact opener that does 2–3 of these (no labels; vary across subsections):
- Content claim: the subsection-specific tension/trade-off (optionally with 1–2 embedded citations)
- Why it matters: link the claim to evaluation/engineering constraints (benchmark/protocol/cost/tool access)
- Preview: what you will contrast next and on what lens (A vs B; then evaluation anchors; then limitations)

Example skeletons (paraphrase; don’t reuse verbatim):

Tension-first:

A central tension is ...; ...; we contrast ...

Decision-first:
```
For builders, the crux is ...; ...
```
Lens-first:
```
Seen through the lens of ..., ...
```

Pass 2 — Terminology normalization

Role split:

Taxonomist: chooses canonical terms and synonym policy.
Integrator: applies consistent replacements across the draft.

Targets:

One concept = one name across sections.
Headings, tables, and prose use the same canonical terms.

Pass 3 — Redundancy pruning (global repetition)

Role split:

Compressor: collapses repeated boilerplate.
Narrative keeper: ensures removing repetition does not break the argument chain.

Targets:

Cross-section repeated intros/outros are removed.
Only subsection-specific content remains inside subsections.

Script

Quick Start

python .codex/skills/draft-polisher/scripts/run.py --help

python .codex/skills/draft-polisher/scripts/run.py --workspace workspaces/<ws>

All Options

```
--workspace <dir>
```
: workspace root
```
--unit-id <U###>
```
: unit id (optional; for logs)
```
--inputs <semicolon-separated>
```
: override inputs (rare; prefer defaults)
```
--outputs <semicolon-separated>
```
: override outputs (rare; prefer defaults)
```
--checkpoint <C#>
```
: checkpoint id (optional; for logs)

Examples

First polish pass (creates anchoring baseline

output/citation_anchors.prepolish.jsonl

python .codex/skills/draft-polisher/scripts/run.py --workspace workspaces/<ws>

Reset the anchoring baseline (only if you intentionally accept citation drift):
- Delete
```
output/citation_anchors.prepolish.jsonl
```
  , then rerun the polisher.

Acceptance checklist

No
```
TODO/TBD/FIXME/(placeholder)
```
.
No
```
…
```
or
```
...
```
truncation.
No repeated boilerplate sentence across many subsections.
Citation anchoring passes (no cross-subsection drift).
Each H3 has at least one cross-paper synthesis paragraph (>=2 citations).

Troubleshooting

Issue: polishing causes citation drift across subsections

Fix:

Keep citations inside the same
```
###
```
subsection; if restructuring is intentional, delete
```
output/citation_anchors.prepolish.jsonl
```
and regenerate a new baseline.

Issue: draft polishing is requested before writing approval

Fix:

Record the relevant approval in
```
DECISIONS.md
```
(typically
```
Approve C2
```
) before doing prose-level edits.

draft-polisher

NPX Install

Tags

SKILL.md Content

Draft Polisher (Audit-style editing)

Role cards (use explicitly)

Style Harmonizer (editor)

Evidence Contract Guard (skeptic)

Role prompt: Style Harmonizer (editor expert)

Inputs

Outputs

Non-negotiables (hard rules)

Three passes (recommended)

Pass 1 — Subsection polish (structure + de-template)

Pass 2 — Terminology normalization

Pass 3 — Redundancy pruning (global repetition)

Script

Quick Start

All Options

Examples

Acceptance checklist

Troubleshooting

Issue: polishing causes citation drift across subsections

Issue: draft polishing is requested before writing approval