| name | draft-polisher |
| description | Audit-style editing pass for `output/DRAFT.md`: remove template boilerplate, improve coherence, and enforce citation anchoring.
**Trigger**: polish draft, de-template, coherence pass, remove boilerplate, 润色, 去套话, 去重复, 统一术语.
**Use when**: a first-pass draft exists but reads like scaffolding (repetition/ellipsis/template phrases) or needs a coherence pass before global review/LaTeX.
**Skip if**: the draft already reads human-grade and passes quality gates; or prose is not approved in `DECISIONS.md`.
**Network**: none.
**Guardrail**: do not add/remove/invent citation keys; do not move citations across subsections; do not change claims beyond what existing citations support.
|
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)
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.ymloutline/subsection_briefs.jsonloutline/evidence_drafts.jsonlcitations/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 to , ...” (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 --helppython .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
Acceptance checklist
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.
