The skill's task is editing on the principle of "first the text's task, then the words." A bad editor polishes formulations in a text that doesn't solve the reader's task. A good one first checks the meaning, the facts, and the structure, and only then descends to sentences and words. Fixing stop words in a meaningless text is like tidying up a house that needs to be demolished.
The method is based on the practices of Lyudmila Sarycheva (gladlax.ru) and was assembled together with Nikita Arkhipov (niar42.com).
Step 0. Context
Before editing, find out (ask if it's unclear from the text and the request):
- Who the reader is and why they will open the text. What should change after reading?
- Where the text will live. An article, a post, a newsletter, documentation — the register depends on the platform.
- Register:
- Strict (articles, media, documentation) — third person, no imperative mood, no evaluations, only facts.
- Authorial (posts, blogs, first-person newsletters) — "I" is allowed, along with colloquial intensifiers and humor. Officialese is forbidden in both.
If the project has a file .agents/redpolitika.md — read it first: it contains the project's audience, tone, and stop words. If the file doesn't exist and the user works with texts regularly, suggest creating it with the skill redpolitika.
Don't find everything out with a questionnaire of ten questions. Usually one or two clarifications are enough; the rest is visible from the text.
Modes
- Audit — the user wants to understand what's wrong with the text. A diagnosis and edits with explanations, without a fully rewritten version unless asked.
- Rewrite — the user wants a finished text. A rewritten version + an explanation of the key edits.
If it's unclear which mode is needed, make an edit: it triggers a mini-analysis.
Depth of analysis
Adapt your answer to the person you're talking to. You can answer an editor using the method's terms. If the user isn't from the editing world, explain simply: not "an unsupported claim" but "here it says 'many believe', but it's unclear who and where this is known from". Either avoid terms or explain them in parentheses, and keep the analysis shorter: three main edits are more useful than fifteen.
Passes
Edit in successive passes, from large to small. Don't mix them: if you start fixing words before checking the meaning, you'll have to redo it.
1. Meaning and substance
Unsupported claims, evaluations instead of facts, simple recipes, vagueness ("many", "more and more"). What does the text lack for the reader to believe it and be able to apply it? Don't invent facts — ask the author questions. → Details: references/smysl-i-faktura.md
2. Structure
Informative and self-contained subheadings, completeness of sections, order of blocks, references to the meaningful part, images and captions. → Details: references/struktura.md
3. Tone
Respect for the reader: no "you must", no moralizing; the reader is not a fool or a slacker. In the strict register — third person and no imperative mood. → Details: references/tonalnost.md
4. Sentence
People and actions instead of phenomena and processes. Adverbial and participial phrases — reformulate. Information density: no more than 2–3 entities per sentence. Homogeneous members — cut. Passive voice — into active. → Details: references/predlozhenie.md
5. Word
Officialese, clichés, obscurantism, intensifiers, stop words, epithets instead of names of entities. Test: if a word can't be said aloud over tea — throw it out. → Details: references/slovo.md; more on evaluations — references/otsenki.md, on clichés by genre — references/shtampy.md
6. Rhythm
Read the result "aloud." Monotonous syntax is the main enemy of edited text: after aggressive cutting, sentences become uniformly short and choppy. Alternate the length, connect the sentences. → Details: references/ritm.md
7. Traces of a neural network
If the draft was written or rewritten by a model — a mandatory pass: "not X, but Y" contrasts, taking into account the volume of the text, evaluative teasers like "an honest caveat," pseudo-depth, hedging, calques, uniformity. The goal of the pass is to bring the author back into the text. Do not touch dashes and grammar: they do not indicate AI. → Details: references/neirotekst.md
After the passes, go back and check that the rhythm edits did not bring back the junk from passes 4–5, and that the cuts did not kill the meaning from pass 1.
Response format
"Analysis" mode
## Диагноз
2–4 предложения: что с текстом происходит на уровне смысла и задачи. Не перечень мелочей, а суть.
## Главные правки
| Фрагмент | Проблема (имя правила) | Как исправить |
|---|---|---|
## Что ещё нужно узнать
Вопросы по фактуре, источникам, аудитории — то, что редактор не может выдумать за автора.
"Editing" mode
## Переписанная версия
[готовый текст]
## Ключевые правки
3–7 пунктов: что изменил и по какому правилу. Называй правила по имени («однородные члены», «оценка без факта», «однообразный синтаксис») — так автор учится, а не просто получает текст.
## Что ещё нужно узнать
[если есть дыры в фактуре — вопросы; если нет, раздел опусти]
In the edits table, do not dump all 40 remarks — choose the main ones that affect the text the most. Group minor issues of one type: "bureaucratic language in 6 places, for example…".
What not to do
- Do not change the meaning. Editing strengthens the author's text, not replaces it with the editor's text. If you are unsure what was meant, ask.
- Do not invent facts, numbers, and examples. Mark a gap in the factual material with a question in "What else needs to be found out."
- Do not overdry. The goal is not the shortest text, but the most useful one. Remove junk — yes, remove details, examples, and liveliness — no.
- Do not edit fanatically. Any rule can be broken if the text is better that way. Rules are tools, not dogma.
Related skills
- statya — writing an article from scratch (gathering factual material, structure, draft)
- ux-copy — interface texts: buttons, errors, forms
- redpolitika — create a project context file that this skill reads at step 0