engineering-polishing

name

engineering-polishing

description

Polish, locally restructure, or translate source notes into English engineering manuscript prose while preserving evidence boundaries. Use when the user asks to improve English academic style, paragraph flow, claim strength, anti-AI wording, terminology consistency, hedging, clarity, or publication-ready expression for existing engineering conference or journal paper content. Do not use for creating a new section argument, figure/table-only work, reviewer responses, or readiness validation.

Engineering Polishing

Use this skill after the paper's claim and evidence are known. It improves English manuscript prose without hiding structural or evidence problems.

Core Stance

• Final output defaults to English manuscript prose.
• Do not invent facts, references, mechanisms, experiments, numbers, novelty, or limitations.
• Do not polish a broken argument as if it were correct.
• Diagnose the failure mode before rewriting.
• Preserve technical terms, variables, units, metric definitions, and evidence boundaries.
• Prefer restrained, concrete academic English over promotional language.

Boundaries

• If the paragraph lacks a stable claim-evidence structure, first return a logic diagnosis and do not present polished prose as final.
• Use engineering-writing when the user needs a new section argument, contribution map, or full paper structure.
• Use engineering-figure-table for captions, figure/table roles, or visual consistency.
• Use engineering-response for comments and response letters.
• Use engineering-validation for build checks or readiness claims.

When to Open Extra Files

File	Open when
references/fact-boundary.md	The source is a rough skeleton, non-English notes, or evidence is incomplete
references/paragraph-function.md	Identifying paragraph job before rewriting
references/engineering-topic-modules.md	Polishing control, algorithm, data-driven, materials, process, or multi-physics paragraphs
references/list-handling.md	Skill-specific list cleanup examples
references/paragraph-flow.md	Paragraphs feel unclear, repetitive, poorly ordered, or hard to follow
references/claim-strength.md	Claims may overstate evidence, causality, robustness, generalization, or novelty
references/claim-strength-diff.md	Comparing source and rewrite to ensure polish did not strengthen claims
references/anti-ai-prose.md	Text sounds generic, repetitive, slogan-like, template-like, or model-generated
references/style-guardrails.md	Need sentence-level academic English, transitions, hedging, terminology, or mechanics
references/source-notes.md	Non-English or rough notes must become English manuscript prose
references/source-note-expansion-check.md	A rewrite may have introduced facts not present in source notes
references/whole-paper-style-drift.md	Multiple sections may sound inconsistent, overly smooth, or template-like
references/examples.md	Needing before/after examples or output behavior examples
references/failure-modes.md	Handling requests to strengthen unsupported claims or hide weak evidence
../_shared/evidence-boundary.md	The rewrite may change factual scope or claim strength
../_shared/claim-strength.md	A local claim needs verb or novelty calibration
../_shared/ai-assisted-writing-policy.md	Polished prose may hide AI-smell, unverified facts, or disclosure risk
../_shared/list-to-argument.md	Source prose is a list rather than a paragraph argument
../_shared/non-english-source-notes.md	Source notes include assumptions or non-English shorthand
../_shared/output-mode.md	The user asks for output only
../_shared/sentence-role-and-story-flow.md	Checking whether each sentence is necessary, connected, and non-redundant
../_shared/terminology-ledger.md	User asks for varied wording around technical terms

Workflow

1. Identify the section and paragraph job.
2. Apply fact-boundary checks when source notes are thin.
3. Diagnose the main problem: paper logic, section job, paragraph flow, claim/evidence mismatch, or sentence style.
4. Fix higher-level logic before sentence polish.
5. Run a sentence-role check: each sentence must be necessary, placed correctly, connected to its neighbors, and bounded by evidence.
6. Run a claim-strength diff against the source before accepting stronger verbs.
7. Preserve source facts and evidence boundaries.
8. Rewrite in English with concrete subjects, varied sentence shapes, and calibrated verbs.
9. Report any claim that still needs evidence.

A paragraph has a stable claim-evidence structure only when at least three of these are clear: paragraph job, main claim, evidence anchor, and boundary. If fewer than three are clear, diagnose first and do not present polished prose as final.

Default Output

Diagnosis
- Paragraph job:
- Main issue:
- Evidence risk:

Before / After / Rationale
| Source sentence or span | Revised sentence or span | Rationale | Fact/evidence risk |

Claim-strength diff
| Source claim | Revised claim | Strength change | Allowed? | Reason |

Sentence role audit
| Sentence/span | Job | Needed because | Connection to previous/next | Evidence boundary | Action |

Polished version
[English prose]

Unsupported claims
- ...

If the user asks for output only, return only the polished prose unless doing so would hide unsupported claims or unverified evidence.