Engineering polishing
Skill 169884902hzl/engineering-paper-skills/skills/engineering-polishing
Evidence-bound Codex skills for engineering paper writing, manuscript audit, figure/table claims, reviewer response, and validation.
npx -y skills add 169884902hzl/engineering-paper-skills --skill engineering-polishingAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 1 stars1 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
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.
SKILL.md
6.2 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
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-writingwhen the user needs a new section argument, contribution map, or full paper structure. - Use
engineering-figure-tablefor captions, figure/table roles, or visual consistency. - Use
engineering-responsefor comments and response letters. - Use
engineering-validationfor 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
- Identify the section and paragraph job.
- Apply fact-boundary checks when source notes are thin.
- Diagnose the main problem: paper logic, section job, paragraph flow, claim/evidence mismatch, or sentence style.
- Fix higher-level logic before sentence polish.
- Run a sentence-role check: each sentence must be necessary, placed correctly, connected to its neighbors, and bounded by evidence.
- Run a claim-strength diff against the source before accepting stronger verbs.
- Preserve source facts and evidence boundaries.
- Rewrite in English with concrete subjects, varied sentence shapes, and calibrated verbs.
- 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.