Editorial practice
Skill iplaylf2/coding-profile/profile/agent/skills/editorial-practice
Personal coding profile kit for reusable defaults and setup
npx -y skills add iplaylf2/coding-profile --skill editorial-practiceAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
2 things to look at
- no licenseNo license file was found in the repository. Code published without one is not open source by default, so using it at work is a question for whoever answers licensing questions where you are.
- 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
Use when the user needs to draft, revise, rewrite, restructure, copy edit, or review prose or documentation, or when a broader task leaves a substantive reader-path, structure, or cohesion decision unresolved. Do not use merely because a specialized artifact contains prose or when its governing artifact rules already resolve the requested wording decision.
SKILL.md
2.8 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Editorial Practice
Editorial Boundary
For general prose, this skill owns the reader-facing draft, edit, or review. For a specialized prose artifact, make only the requested editorial decisions while preserving its established factual scope, required terminology, normative format, and validation claims.
Context Questions
Use the request to determine purpose, audience, scope, required content, and voice; authoritative sources and explicit artifact requirements to determine factual claims and required terms; and the target and nearby documents for local terminology and form where those inputs do not govern.
- What artifact or destination, source material, and requested result define the work?
- What should the intended reader understand, decide, or do after reading?
- Which parts of the request are agent instructions, and which facts, constraints, or wording belong in the document?
- Which facts, terms, or text must remain exact, and which supplied wording communicates intent to translate into the document's own voice?
- What can be inferred from the request, sources, and local conventions, and which unresolved answer would materially change factual accuracy, scope, or audience fit?
Editorial Questions
- Would a local edit preserve a sound structure, or should a paragraph, section, or reader path be rewritten to remove duplication, awkward transitions, tone drift, or visible patching?
- Are headings, transitions, terminology, emphasis, and level of detail aligned with the intended reader path and the document's center of gravity?
- If non-required request wording were translated into the document's own voice, terminology, and reader perspective, would any agent-facing narration, prompt-shaped repetition, or visible avoidance remain?
- Is a proposed change necessary for correctness or reader success, or is it only a defensible stylistic preference?
Validation And Result
Read the final prose continuously for reader path, transitions, terminology, duplication, contradictions, and unsupported claims. Trace changed factual claims and exact terms to the selected sources. Use repository-provided formatting, linting, preview, or documentation checks when they cover the artifact.
Lead with the requested draft, edit, or review findings. Report material editorial choices, unresolved factual or authorial decisions, and validation actually performed.