After editing, there should be a real person in this article saying one real thing.
Output format: use the three-part form "before → after → why it was changed this way." In the after version, use corner brackets 「」, use bold sparingly, and do not use em dashes — this is the default style, unless the user specifies another format (such as WeChat official account Markdown).
Entry-point judgment: first figure out the principal contradiction
Before you start writing, spend 10 seconds scanning the whole text and judging the principal contradiction:
- Quick scan, check the number of AI-pattern triggers.
- AI-pattern triggers ≥ 3 → the principal contradiction is AI flavor rather than structural redundancy → Stop. Tell the user: "This piece has {N} AI-flavor triggers. The principal contradiction is AI patterns rather than structural redundancy. I suggest de-flavoring first, then coming back to do structural tightening. Starting to edit directly is also fine, but my judgment is that de-flavoring takes priority."
- The main problem is long-winded paragraphs, monotonous rhythm, weak ending → the principal contradiction is structural redundancy → continue with this skill.
- Not sure → continue editing. Note at the start of the report: "Mixed type: suggest handling AI flavor first, then come back to look at structure."
Three questions before you start writing
Direction matters more than technique in editing. If the direction is wrong, the harder you edit, the further off you go. Before you start writing, answer these three questions first:
Who is this person: a manager, a technical person, an ordinary office worker? How does he usually talk?
Who is he talking to: an internal report, an external release, persuading a particular person?
Strip away all the embellishment, which few sentences is he really trying to say: find those few sentences; everything else is scaffolding.
If you can't answer the third question, don't edit yet. If after reading you can't find "what this person really wants to say," then ask him: "Which sentence do you most want the reader to remember from this article?" or "If you could only say one thing, what would you say?" Once the answer is out, then start.
Find the author's voice
Before editing, read the whole text first and answer three questions. This step matters more than rewriting technique — if you start editing sentence by sentence without first identifying the author's voice, you will delete the author's personality as if it were fluff.
Which sentences are "something only this person could write"? Find them, mark them as a protected zone, and do not touch a single word. This is the life of the article.
What are the author's speaking habits? Long sentences or short sentences? Colloquial or written? Fond of metaphors or saying it straight? Humorous or heavy? Get a clear sense of the habits and follow them when editing; don't replace his with your own habits.
Where is the best part of this piece? First find the best sentence or paragraph. Then see which other places fail to match up to it — only the ones that fail to match up get changed; the ones that match up stay untouched.
To change or not to change
| Situation | Handling |
|---|---|
| The meaning is there, but buried under boilerplate | Major edit, dig it out |
| The meaning is there, but the way it's expressed doesn't sound like this person | Light edit, adjust the expression |
| Can't find a real person saying one real thing | Stop first and ask what the author really wants to say |
| The whole piece is a ceremonial document (meeting minutes, announcement) | Only clean up, don't dig for the truth |
| It's what he would say anyway | Don't touch it |
Quick Knife Mode
Triggered when the user says "help me cut the fluff," "only delete, don't rewrite," or "just help me trim it down." Quick Knife Mode does not restructure; it only cuts obvious boilerplate and fluff, and outputs a simplified version.
Quick Knife Process：
- Run through the fluff-cutting checklist (boilerplate openings, degree filler words, fake parallelism, slogan endings, forced lists)
- Only delete, don't rewrite. Keep all of the author's own expressions.
- Output format simplified to:
【删了什么】
- 「{原文}」→ 套话开头，删
- 「{原文}」→ 程度虚词，删
- ...
【快刀后版本】
{删除废话后的完整文本}
The bottom line of Quick Knife Mode: Don't speak for the author. Only cut out the tumor, don't open new wounds.
What should be cut
Boilerplate openings: In today's..., with the development of..., as we all know
Degree filler words: crucial, indispensable, significantly improved (keep the data, cut the slogan)
Fake parallelism: In "not A but B," cut the half that was padded in for contrast; keep the real comparison
Slogan endings: Let us together..., the future is promising, join hands and move forward
Forced lists: First... second... besides... finally, break them apart and find the real logical thread
What not to touch
Technical terms and jargon: This is his language, not fluff.
Catchphrases and distinctive expressions: Keep them; this is the source of human flavor.
Data: Only change the packaging, not the content.
Stance and degree: "Somewhat difficult" cannot be changed to "absolutely impossible," and "disagree" cannot be changed to "have reservations." Changing the degree or stance is lying on the author's behalf.
Length Alert
After cutting the boilerplate, check the change in length:
- Length shrinks < 30% → normal, continue
- Length shrinks 30%-50% → caution, you may have cut too many breathing sentences
- Length shrinks > 50% → Alert. Mark it at the end with [Editor's Follow-up], listing the specific facts the author needs to add
Length Alert output format：
【编辑追问】
本文精简后篇幅大幅缩水。请补充：
1. {具体需要补充的事实/数据/例子}
2. {具体需要补充的背景/原因}
3. {具体需要补充的下一步计划}
Principle: cutting boilerplate is to make the truth stand out more, not to make the article shorter. If after cutting the article becomes dry and lifeless, that means you cut too much.
Delete or keep (the middle ground)
Some boilerplate is not black and white. When you're unsure, go through this table:
| Situation | Handling |
|---|---|
| Boilerplate, but it comes out where the author is emotional | Keep it. Elevation at an emotional moment is warmth, not fluff. |
| Boilerplate, but it's a breather between two paragraphs | Keep it. Real people write with looseness and tightness; breathing sentences give the article a sense of breath. |
| Boilerplate, and unrelated to the overall emotion of the piece | Delete. |
| Boilerplate, and deleting it only removes one sentence of fluff | Delete. |
| The author's catchphrase, even if it isn't "concise" | Keep it. This is the way he talks; changing it would make it not sound like him. |
Principle: Don't turn a living article into a "correct" article.
Rhythm Awareness
After revising, read it through once and ask yourself: Is every sentence pulling its weight?
Real people write with looseness and tightness. After stating a point, they add an explanation, sometimes self-correct, and sometimes just express a feeling without advancing the logic. If every sentence in the revised article is a conclusion, with no sentence to breathe, add one or two loose sentences back.
Making every sentence a golden line is another kind of unnaturalness.
Rhythm self-check list:
- Is the word-count ratio between the longest paragraph and the shortest paragraph in the whole text > 3:1? If not → lacks ups and downs
- Are there more than 3 consecutive paragraphs each over 150 characters? If yes → readers will get tired; choose one paragraph to split
- Is there a one-sentence paragraph to provide breathing room? If not → add a very short paragraph at a key turning point
- Is the variance in sentence length across the whole text large enough? If all are 15-25 characters → the rhythm is monotonous; switch in one 5-character short sentence and one 40-character long sentence
Ending Strategy
After revising, check the ending. If you used a one-size-fits-all "summary/elevation/cheer" → replace it. Choose the ending type according to the article's tone:
| Ending Type | Characteristics | Applicable To |
|---|---|---|
| Aftertaste Type | Return to a life scene or detail, without summarizing | Narrative/retrospective; let readers savor it themselves |
| Action Type | Make the next step clear: "Okay, go try it" "Delete it from your cart after reading" | Tutorial/method; push readers to act |
| Circular Type | Echo a word, scene, or judgment from the beginning | Opinion/commentary; create a sense of completeness |
| Abrupt Stop Type | Do not write "finally" or "in conclusion"; end directly after the last sentence | Universal for all types; closest to how real people speak |
Forbidden endings:
- "Hope it helps you" "Let's grow together" "The future is promising" → slogans, delete
- "To summarize" "Written in the final summary" → delete the word "summary"; the main text already has it
Post-Revision Check: What Has This Article Lost?
After revising, read it through once and ask yourself: After the revision, what has this article lost?
- Has it lost the author's catchphrase? → Add it back. A catchphrase is a source of human flavor.
- Has it lost some elevation that gave the article warmth? → Consider adding it back. Elevation at emotional moments is not empty talk.
- Has it lost some content that seemed superfluous but was actually breathing room? → Add it back. Real people write with looseness and tightness.
- Is it just missing clichés and empty talk? → That is correct; don't agonize over it.
Revision is not about being as clean as possible. When it is "clean but not cold," stop.
Output Template
【改前】
{原文}
【改后】
{改写后的完整文本}
【改了什么】
{3-5 条，每条说清：改了哪里、为什么。}
【失去了什么检查】
{改完之后失去了什么？口头禅/温度/喘息句？如果是，加回来。如果只是少了套话和废话，说「无」。}
【结尾策略检查】
{改完后的结尾属于余味型/行动型/回环型/戛然而止型？与文章调性是否匹配？如果不匹配，建议调整方向。}
【下一步建议】
内容已改完。建议接下来检查：标题是否兑现了正文承诺、开头是否匹配标题方向、标点是否全角、排版是否有呼吸感。——可用 /包装工坊 一站式处理。
Example
Before revision (opening of an article for public release): In today's entrepreneurial environment, more and more entrepreneurs are beginning to pay attention to the Lean Startup methodology. The core idea of this methodology is to help entrepreneurs find the right direction amid uncertainty through rapid iteration and continuous feedback. It is worth noting that Lean Startup is not only applicable to the internet industry; it also has important reference value in traditional industries.
After revision: Entrepreneurship is a near-death experience nine times out of ten, and the vast majority die on "working for a year before discovering nobody wants it." Lean Startup solves exactly this one thing—don't wait a year; know in a week whether the direction is right. This logic isn't just for the internet; it works for opening a restaurant too.
Why change it this way: "In today's entrepreneurial environment" is a boilerplate opening—cut it; "the core idea is to..." is a summary—replace it with a concrete scenario (working for a year and nobody wants it); "it's worth noting that"—cut it, say it directly. The core message the author wants to convey (Lean Startup + cross-industry applicability) is preserved, but reorganized the way a real person talks.
Before (work report): This week, with the full collaboration of all colleagues, the project achieved phased progress. We overcame many difficulties and completed the development of core functions as planned. At the same time, we are also clearly aware of existing shortcomings and will continue to improve in subsequent work.
After: Three things got done this week: the user login module is finished, tested and no major problems; the payment interface integration hit a snag—the other side's docs were unclear, which cost a day; on Friday we held a review meeting and the product manager changed the requirements again. Next week's focus: get the payment flow working end to end and aim to submit for testing.
Why change it this way: "Overcame many difficulties" is empty talk—it doesn't say what the difficulties were; "continuous improvement" is a slogan—it doesn't say what will be done next week. Dig out the concrete facts and delete the embellishments.
Next-step suggestions (condition-triggered)
Not recommended every time—only say something when the result clearly points to the next step. The revised version has already been provided; when the user is satisfied, don't push.
| Result condition | Recommended wording |
|---|---|
| After revision, the text is found to still have AI flavor | "The trimming is done. However, a few spots still read like they were template-generated. Want to do a round of de-flavoring?" |
| After revision, the voice is blurry, not like the author themselves | "The structure is tighter, but the voice seems more distant too. Want to first clarify your voice and confirm which expressions are yours and can't be touched?" |
| After revision, the title/opening/layout/punctuation need polishing | "The body text is revised. Before publishing, I suggest going over the presentation layer—title, opening, layout, punctuation, platform formatting." |
| After revision, the user is unsure about the quality | "Do a health check and look at the post-revision score." |
| Quick-cut mode is complete; the user wants further optimization | "The fluff has been cut. If you still want to adjust the expression, see whether there's any AI flavor." |
DO NOT
- Changing the author's stance or degree → "somewhat difficult" cannot be changed to "absolutely impossible," and "disagree" cannot be changed to "have reservations"
- Deleting the author's verbal tics and distinctive expressions as fluff → identify the protected zones first, then act
- Turning a vibrant article into a "correct" one → heightened emotional passages, breathing sentences, and imperfect traces can all be warmth
- The user has already provided a voice list but it isn't referenced → the list is an upstream-confirmed protected zone and must be followed
- Filling in experiences or details the author didn't have → only delete; don't rewrite content. When details need to be added, suggest the user add them themselves
- Doing a structural rewrite when using quick-cut mode → quick-cut mode only cuts obvious boilerplate and does not change the structure
- After cutting boilerplate, the length shrinks by more than 50% without warning → use the length alarm mechanism and have the author add concrete facts
Shared specifications
This skill shares writing specifications with chinese-write-checker, voice-dissolver, humanize-ai, and packaging-workshop (boilerplate checklist, formatting specifications, protected-zone logic, topic-switch test, density principle). See chinese-write-checker/references/writing-standards.md. Read on demand when needed; do not preload the full text.