style-harmonizer

Style Harmonizer (de-slot editor)

Safety Notice

This listing is imported from skills.sh public index metadata. Review upstream SKILL.md and repository scripts before running.

Copy this and send it to your AI assistant to learn

Install skill "style-harmonizer" with this command: npx skills add willoscar/research-units-pipeline-skills/willoscar-research-units-pipeline-skills-style-harmonizer

Style Harmonizer (de-slot editor)

Purpose: remove subtle generator-voice signals that can survive structural gates.

This skill is not a full rewrite. It is a targeted rewrite queue:

  • only touch the specific sections/*.md files flagged under ## Style Smells

  • keep facts and citation keys unchanged

Inputs

Required:

  • output/WRITER_SELFLOOP_TODO.md (Style Smells section)

  • the referenced sections/*.md files

Optional (helps you stay in-scope while rewriting):

  • outline/writer_context_packs.jsonl (allowed citations + opener_mode hints)

Output

Note: this is intentionally an openers-last pass. Run it only after the section bodies and argument chain are stable (e.g., after section-logic-polisher

  • argument-selfloop
  • paragraph-curator ). If major edits happened since the last writer-selfloop , rerun writer-selfloop first so ## Style Smells reflects the current text.
  • Updated sections/*.md files (same filenames; still body-only; no headings)

  • Re-running writer-selfloop is the audit trail (Style Smells should shrink).

  • Create sections/style_harmonized.refined.ok (empty file) when you are done (pipeline contract signal; required if this unit is marked DONE).

Role cards (use explicitly)

Style Harmonizer (editor)

Mission: remove slot phrases and stem repetition while keeping meaning unchanged.

Do:

  • rewrite the surface form (opener/closer/cadence), not the claim

  • keep each paragraph content-bearing (argument bridge, not navigation)

  • prefer small local edits over global style refactors

Avoid:

  • adding new factual claims or new citations

  • moving citations to different paragraphs or different subsections

  • rewriting a thin section instead of routing upstream for more evidence

Evidence Steward (skeptic)

Mission: prevent style work from becoming content drift.

Do:

  • after each rewrite, spot-check that every cited claim still matches the same sentence

  • if you feel forced to add new material to make prose sound better, stop and route upstream

Common style smells and how to fix them

  1. Count-based opener slots (Two limitations..., Three takeaways...)

Why it is high-signal: it creates a reusable sentence slot that repeats across H3s.

Rewrite moves (choose one):

  • Integrate the caveat into a contrast paragraph (last sentence): state the boundary that changes interpretation.

  • Use a single caveat sentence opener (no counting), but rotate across H3s (avoid repeating the same stem): "These results hinge on ..." / "Interpretation depends on ..." / "Evidence is thin when ..." / "A caveat is that ..." (use sparingly).

  • If enumeration is truly needed, hide the count: use two coordinated clauses in one sentence, or vary the syntax (do not repeat across sections).

Mini example (paraphrase only):

  • Bad: Two limitations stand out. First, ...

  • Better: These results hinge on ...; this matters because it changes how results transfer across protocols.

  1. Reused discourse stems (The key point is that ...)

Rewrite moves:

  • Replace with one of: "A practical implication is that ...", "One takeaway is that ...", "A useful way to read these results is ...".

  • Change cadence: split into a short claim sentence plus a follow-up sentence with the condition/why.

  1. Same opener cadence across many H3s

Rewrite moves:

  • Switch opener mode for the section (tension-first / decision-first / protocol-first / contrast-first).

  • Replace generic connectors (Additionally/Moreover) with content-bearing pivots ("At the protocol level, ...", "Under budget constraints, ...").

  1. Overview / narration openers ("This section provides an overview ...")

Why it is high-signal: it reads like a generated ToC narration rather than a paper argument.

Rewrite moves:

  • Replace "overview" narration with a content-bearing lens: tension/decision/failure/protocol/contrast.

  • Keep the first sentence falsifiable: name the constraint and why it matters (not what you are about to do).

Mini example (paraphrase only):

  • Bad: This section provides an overview of tool interfaces for agents.

  • Better: Tool interfaces define what actions are executable; interface contracts therefore determine which evaluation claims transfer across environments.

  1. Paragraphs repeatedly starting with connector adverbs (Moreover, In addition, Therefore, Overall, As a result)

Why it is high-signal: the prose starts to sound mechanically stitched (each paragraph begins with the same connective), even when the content is solid.

Rewrite moves:

  • Keep the logical relation, but move the connector into the sentence: start with the subject (e.g., "Tool catalogs also ..."), then add the relation mid-sentence ("..., which in turn ...").

  • Use clause shapes instead of adverb openers: "While ... , ..." / "Although ... , ..." / "Because ... , ...".

  • When summarizing, avoid "Overall," as a default label; state the conclusion directly as a claim sentence.

Mini example (paraphrase only):

  • High-signal smell: "Moreover, ..." (repeated across multiple paragraphs)

  • Better: start with the content noun phrase ("One implication is ..." / "A practical constraint is ..."), then express the relation inside the sentence.

  1. Internal shorthand leaking into paper voice ("token(s)" used as a protocol noun)

Why it is high-signal: outside of NLP contexts (token budget/context window), "token" reads like internal shorthand. In this pipeline it often originates from packs/schemas and gets copied into prose, which makes the draft feel like an intermediate artifact.

Rewrite moves:

  • Replace "X tokens" with reader-facing nouns: "X protocol details/assumptions/fields/parameters/dimensions".

  • If you truly mean language-model tokens, keep it numeric and specific (e.g., "a 60k-token context window", "token budget"); avoid using "token" as a generic label for protocol metadata.

  • Avoid "three tokens: ..." slots; either (a) state the conclusion directly, or (b) use "three reporting fields" and embed them naturally in the sentence.

Mini example (paraphrase only):

  • Bad: Overall, self-improvement should be reported as a protocol with three explicit tokens: the feedback channel, the update rule, and the accounting rule.

  • Better: Self-improvement results are easiest to compare when papers make three reporting fields explicit: the feedback channel, the update rule, and the accounting assumptions.

Workflow (minimal)

  • Read output/WRITER_SELFLOOP_TODO.md

  • Find ## Style Smells and the file list.

  • Rewrite only the flagged files

  • Make small edits: opener/closer stems, sentence shape, connector variety.

  • Best-of-2 rewrite (recommended): for any paragraph you touch, draft 2 alternative phrasings and keep the one that (a) removes the slot stem, and (b) does not introduce a new repeated cadence across H3s.

  • If needed, consult outline/writer_context_packs.jsonl for opener_mode hints and to stay citation-scope safe while rewriting.

  • Do not touch citation keys.

  • Re-run writer-selfloop

  • Expect: PASS remains PASS.

  • Expect: Style Smells section is shorter (or disappears).

Done checklist

  • The same slot phrase does not repeat across multiple H3s (especially count-based openers).

  • No citation keys were added/removed/moved.

  • writer-selfloop still reports PASS, and Style Smells shrinks.

Source Transparency

This detail page is rendered from real SKILL.md content. Trust labels are metadata-based hints, not a safety guarantee.

Related Skills

Related by shared tags or category signals.

Research

pdf-text-extractor

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
Research

latex-compile-qa

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
Research

draft-polisher

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
Research

citation-verifier

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review