[{"id":54,"name":"Vocabulary precision","prompt":"Analyze the following text for vocabulary that lacks precision, carries unintended connotations, or falls short of the best available word for the job. Focus on four categories of weakness: words that are technically correct but semantically vague (e.g. \"nice,\" \"interesting,\" \"get\"); words used in a slightly wrong sense, where the writer seems to have reached for a meaning the word does not quite hold; words whose connotations clash with the surrounding tone or context; and missed opportunities where a more exact word exists and would sharpen the sentence without changing its register.\nDo not flag intentional plain diction, colloquial simplicity, or cases where a \"weaker\" word is clearly the right tonal choice. Precision does not mean complexity. The goal is fit, not elevation.\nFor each issue, provide only the quoted word or phrase in bold, a one-sentence explanation of the specific semantic or connotational problem, and a suggested replacement or revision in italic. If multiple alternatives exist with meaningfully different shades, list up to three, each with a one-word label indicating the distinction (e.g. more formal, stronger image, neutral).\nFlag ambiguous cases — where the word might be a deliberate understatement or a genuine imprecision — but note the ambiguity so the writer can decide.\nOutput in markdown as a flat list starting with \"- \". Nothing else.","shortDescription":"Identify weak, vague, or misused word choices","hasFocusText":false,"icon":null,"category":{"id":2,"name":"Editing","subheader":"Full-doc checks","position":2}},{"id":53,"name":"LinkedIn post ideas from transcript","prompt":"You will receive a transcript (interview, podcast, talk, or meeting). Your job is to extract compelling ideas for LinkedIn posts from it. Use post type from the list below as a reference.\n\nFollow these rules:\n\n1. Generate as many ideas as you can. But prioritize quality over quantity. If the transcript only supports 3 strong ideas, stop at 3.\n2. Never force a post type. If the transcript contains no genuine failure story, do not invent one just to fill the \"mistakes and failures\" slot. Only use post types that have real support in the source material.\n3. A single transcript moment can map to more than one post type if the angles are genuinely different.\n4. Do not write the posts themselves.\n5. If you see a strong idea of a LinkedIn post that doesn't fit the list of post types below, add it too.\n6. Keep your explanations short.\n7. Output in markdown.\n\nPost types:\n\nControversial opinion — A hot take on an industry topic grounded in your own experience. If everyone agrees with you, you are not saying anything interesting. The story behind the opinion is what makes it work.\n\nMistakes and failures — Stories about how you messed up and what you learned. Counterintuitive but proven: vulnerability builds more trust than bragging about success.\n\nConsumer experiences — Something you noticed as a customer — a hidden fee, a confusing interface, a brilliant piece of service — turned into business analysis. Relatable and sharp.\n\nPromoting others — Dedicate an entire post to saying something genuinely good about a colleague, partner, or business you admire. Underused, impossible to overdo, and great for relationships.\n\nLife-changing moments — Major pivots: moving countries, switching careers, overcoming a crisis. These hero's journey stories resonate far beyond your industry niche.\n\nIndustry insights — Useful expertise for your core audience. Does not need to be groundbreaking. Consistent, reliable insight builds authority over time.\n\nCelebrate your wins — Share even small victories. LinkedIn is a supportive environment. People enjoy cheering for progress at any scale.\n\nEvent recaps — Takeaways from a conference or trade show. Tag speakers and people you met. Signals you are active in the community and opens networking doors. Use sparingly — over-tagging people who do not engage will hurt reach.\n\nYour team — A variant of promoting others aimed at your immediate colleagues. Welcome a new hire, say goodbye to someone leaving, highlight the humans behind the work.\n\nCompany news with a personal twist — Share company updates but skip the corporate copy-paste. Add why you are proud of it, what was hard about it, why it matters to you personally.\n\nShare something personal — Hobbies, family, personal struggles. In moderation, it makes you three-dimensional and breaks down professional barriers.","shortDescription":"Generate post ideas from an interview or a meeting","hasFocusText":false,"icon":null,"category":{"id":4,"name":"Research","subheader":"Gather and analyze material","position":0}},{"id":52,"name":"Zero-repeat scan","prompt":"Scan the following long-form text for repeated words, phrases, or constructions that are distinctive enough to create an unintentional echo. A very experienced editor would catch these even when they appear thousands of words apart.\n\nWhat to flag:\n\n1. Specific or unusual words repeated more than once (e.g., \"relentless\" appearing in paragraph 2 and paragraph 14). Common utility words (the, very, important, great) are excluded unless they appear in a repeated pattern.\n2. Repeated modifiers or intensifiers that are distinctive enough to stand out (e.g., \"deeply flawed\" and \"deeply personal\" in the same piece).\n3. Identical structural patterns reused with different subjects (e.g., \"zero funding\" and \"zero experience,\" or \"the kind of X that Y\" appearing twice).\n4. Repeated figurative language or imagery (e.g., two separate metaphors involving water, or calling two different things \"a machine\").\n5. Distinctive phrases or collocations used more than once, even if slightly varied (e.g., \"at the end of the day\" appearing near both the opening and the closing).\n\nWhat to ignore: genuinely common words and phrases that a reader would never notice repeating. Use editorial judgment — the test is whether a careful reader might feel a faint sense of déjà vu.","shortDescription":"Catch accidental reuse of distinctive words and phrases","hasFocusText":false,"icon":"pair","category":{"id":2,"name":"Editing","subheader":"Full-doc checks","position":2}},{"id":51,"name":"Anton Chekhov","prompt":"Analyze the following prose the way Anton Chekhov would critique a student's work in a creative writing workshop. Don't impersonate Chekhov. Instead, apply his actual craft principles — the ones he laid out in his letters to other writers — as a rigorous analytical framework.\n\n1. Absolute Objectivity. The writer must be an unbiased witness, not a judge. Flag any moment where the narrative voice preaches, moralizes, or tells the reader who to root for. If a horse thief is the protagonist, do not apologize for him; simply describe the theft perfectly. The jury (the readers) will decide the verdict; the writer’s only job is to present the evidence clearly.\n\n2. \"The Moon on Broken Glass\" (Specifics over Generalities). This is the grandfather of \"Show, Don't Tell.\" Eliminate generic descriptions of nature or emotion. Never say \"it was a moonlit night.\" Instead, as Chekhov famously advised his brother: \"The moon is understood only when you show how it glints on a piece of broken bottle glass or a mill dam casting a black shadow.\" Find the single, small detail that implies the whole scene.\n\n3. Brevity is the Sister of Talent. Chekhov despised \"padding.\" ruthlessly cut anything that does not drive the narrative or illuminate character. Unlike King, who focuses on pacing, Chekhov focuses on density. If a story can be told in 50 pages, tell it in 5. If it can be told in 5 pages, tell it in 1.\n\n4. The Principle of Necessity (Chekhov's Gun). Remove every element that is not essential to the structure. \"If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there.\" Scan the draft for \"false promises\"—characters, objects, or settings introduced with fanfare that never pay off.\n\n5. The \"Cold\" Eye. To move the reader to tears, the writer must remain dry. Flag moments where the writing becomes sentimental, weepy, or overly emotional. Chekhov believed that the more objective and \"cold\" the description of suffering, the sharper the pain is felt by the reader. Subjectivity blunts the impact; clinical detachment sharpens it.\n\n6. Discard the Beginning. Chekhov frequently advised throwing away the first three pages of a draft. He believed writers spend the beginning \"lying\" or \"posturing\" to get comfortable. The story usually starts in the middle, once the writer has forgotten they are writing. Locate the moment the action truly starts, and cut everything before it.\n\n7. Character Equality. Avoid the \"Center of the Universe\" syndrome. Do not divide characters into \"heroes\" and \"extras.\" Even the minor characters must be treated as the protagonists of their own lives. Flag any dialogue where a side character speaks only to feed lines to the main character. Everyone should speak from their own distinct worldview.\n\n8. Questions, Not Answers. The writer’s role is not to solve the problem (e.g., \"does God exist?\" or \"is serfdom bad?\"), but to formulate the problem correctly. Flag any section where the narrative provides a neat solution or a moral lesson. A true Chekhovian ending often leaves the reader with a question, reflecting the unresolved complexity of real life.\n\n9. The Tragedy of the Mundane. Avoid the temptation of high drama for drama's sake. People do not spend every moment shooting each other or declaring love; they eat dinner, they talk about the weather, and while they are doing so, their lives are broken. Flag \"movie scenes\" and replace them with the quiet, devastating realism of ordinary moments.\n\n10. Stereotype Demolition. Scour the text for stock characters—the evil stepmother, the holy peasant, the dashing hero. Chekhov insisted that \"good\" people have vices and \"bad\" people have virtues. If a character feels entirely one-note, complicate them. Give the villain a moment of kindness; give the hero a moment of petty cruelty.\n\n11. The \"Graceful\" Exit. Flag endings that try too hard to wrap everything up with a bow or endings that trail off into vagueness. The ending should feel like a musical chord that hangs in the air—resolving the tone even if the plot remains open.\n\n12. Audacity of Syntax. Don't polish the life out of the prose. If a sentence is grammatically awkward but psychologically perfect, keep it. \"Smooth\" writing can sometimes slide right off the reader's brain; \"rough\" writing can hook it.\n\n13. Individualize the Environment. Never describe the setting objectively. Describe the setting as seen by the character. A depressed character should notice the mud and the gray sky; a happy character might notice the same sky as \"pearl-colored.\" The environment is a character trait.\n\n14. Flag transitions that feel forced or overly logical (\"And then he went to the store because he needed milk\"). Instead, try jumping between images or moments. Trust the reader to make the leap between \"He stared at the wall\" and \"The train whistle blew.\"\n\n15. The Rule: Identify the least important person in your scene. Give them a moment of dignity or distinct humanity. Do not use them as mere furniture.\n\nFor each issue found, quote the specific passage, explain the problem through the lens of the relevant Chekhov principle, and offer a revised version. At the end, write a single paragraph of overall assessment: what is alive in this prose and what is dead weight. Be direct. No encouragement for its own sake — but give full credit where something works.","shortDescription":"Prose critique applying Chekhov's principles","hasFocusText":false,"icon":null,"category":{"id":6,"name":"Famous writers","subheader":"Feedback from the best","position":5}},{"id":50,"name":"George Orwell","prompt":"Analyze the following prose the way George Orwell would critique a student's work in a creative writing workshop. Don't impersonate Orwell. Instead, apply his actual craft principles — the ones he laid out in \"Politics and the English Language,\" and other works — as a rigorous analytical framework.\n\n1. Dying metaphors. Flag every phrase that has lost its evocative power—\"toe the line,\" \"ride roughshod,\" \"stand shoulder to shoulder.\" If the phrase doesn't summon a fresh visual image in your mind, it is merely a collection of sounds that saves the writer the trouble of inventing a new phrase. Cut them ruthlessly.\n\n2. Verbal false limbs. Identify where simple verbs are being killed and replaced by phrases made of nouns or adjectives. Flag \"render inoperative,\" \"militate against,\" \"make contact with,\" or \"give rise to.\" Show how a single, transitive verb (break, stop, meet, cause) makes the sentence alive rather than static.\n\n3. Pretentious diction. Flag every use of \"phenomenon,\" \"element,\" \"individual,\" \"objective,\" \"categorical,\" \"effective,\" or \"virtual\" where a simpler word will do. Mark any foreign phrase (\"deus ex machina,\" \"ancien régime\") used to give an air of culture. These are usually used to dress up simple statements and give an air of scientific impartiality to biased judgments.\n\n4. The passive voice (political evasion). Similar to King, but with a political edge. Identify where the passive voice is used not just for flow, but to hide the agent of the action—e.g., \"bombs were dropped\" instead of \"we dropped bombs.\" Mark where the writer uses the passive to make indefensible actions seem like inevitable natural disasters.\n\n5. Meaningless words. Flag words that have been completely drained of specific meaning—\"fascism,\" \"democracy,\" \"socialism,\" \"freedom,\" \"patriotic,\" \"realistic,\" \"justice.\" If the writer cannot define the word intimately and precisely, note that they are likely using it only to elicit an emotional response rather than to convey a fact.\n\n6. The \"not un-\" formation. Banish the double negative. Flag every \"not unlikely,\" \"not unjustifiable,\" or \"not uninteresting.\" Show how these constructions degrade the language by making it timid and vague. Force the writer to strip the negatives to see what remains (e.g., \"It is likely\" vs. \"It is not unlikely\").\n\n7. Concrete over abstract. Flag every long string of abstract words that fails to arrest the reader’s attention. Demand that the writer turn the concept into a sensory object or event. If you can't see, hear, or touch what is being described, it is too vague.\n\n8. The Short Word Rule. \"Never use a long word where a short one will do.\" Flag every \"ameliorate\" that could be \"help,\" every \"utilize\" that could be \"use.\" Long words often act as a narcotic, lulling the reader into a state of reduced consciousness. Short, Saxon words wake them up.\n\n9. The Cut Rule. \"If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.\" Analyze every sentence for redundancy. If a word is not doing specific work, it is actively diluting the strength of the sentence. There is no neutral ground; a word either helps or hurts.\n\n10. The Barbarous Exception. Orwell’s final safety valve: \"Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.\" After applying all the strictures above, read the result aloud. If the strict application of a rule results in a sentence that sounds hideous, clumsy, or unnaturally stiff, break the rule to save the ear.\n\n11. The \"Gumstrip\" Method. Flag instances where the writer is assembling sentences out of pre-fabricated blocks like \"a consideration which we should do well to bear in mind\" or \"at the end of the day.\" Force the writer to break these strips apart and build the sentence brick by brick (word by word) to ensure they actually mean what they say.\n\n12. Good prose is like a windowpane. Flag any \"purple prose,\" decorative flourishes, or style that draws attention to itself rather than the subject.\n\n13. Euphemisms. Scrutinize soft words used to describe hard realities. Flag terms like \"pacification\" (bombing villages), \"transfer of population\" (forced expulsion), or \"rectification of frontiers\" (conquest). Translate these euphemisms into plain English. If the plain English sounds horrifying, the euphemism was a lie designed to act like \"soft snow,\" blurring the outlines of the truth.\n\n14. Flag writing that is too sterile or intellectual. Good writing should be grounded in the physical world of the \"ordinary\" person. If the writing floats entirely in the realm of theory and lacks the grit of daily life, it is failing.\n\nFor each issue found, quote the specific passage, explain the problem through the lens of the relevant Orwell principle, and offer a revised version. At the end, write a single paragraph of overall assessment: what is alive in this prose and what is dead weight. Be direct. No encouragement for its own sake — but give full credit where something works.","shortDescription":"Prose critique applying Orwell's principles","hasFocusText":false,"icon":null,"category":{"id":6,"name":"Famous writers","subheader":"Feedback from the best","position":5}},{"id":49,"name":"Stephen King","prompt":"Analyze the following prose the way Stephen King would critique a student's work in a creative writing workshop. Don't impersonate King. Instead, apply his actual craft principles — the ones he laid out in \"On Writing,\" his interviews, and his introductions to other writers' work — as a rigorous analytical framework.\n\n1. Adverbs and weak modifiers. Flag every adverb propping up a verb that should be doing the work alone. Quote the offending phrase, then show how a stronger verb eliminates the crutch.\n2. Passive voice. Identify each instance where passive construction drains energy from the sentence. Show the active alternative. Note the rare cases where passive is the right call and explain why.\n3. \"The road to hell is paved with adverbs\" — but also with throat-clearing. Find every sentence or paragraph opening that delays the point: unnecessary scene-setting, hedging, warming up on the page. Mark where the real sentence or scene actually begins.\n4. Dialogue attribution. Flag every instance of attribution beyond \"said\" and \"asked\" — every \"exclaimed,\" \"muttered,\" \"interjected.\" Flag adverbs attached to attribution even harder. If the dialogue itself doesn't convey how it's spoken, note that the dialogue needs rewriting, not a fancier tag.\n5. Fear and honesty. This is the deeper layer. Identify moments where the writer appears to flinch — where they go vague instead of specific, abstract instead of concrete, sentimental instead of true. Point to exactly where the prose pulls its punch and suggest what the writer might be avoiding.\n6. Narrative velocity. King writes about closed doors (first draft) and open doors (revision). Assess pacing: mark sections where the story stalls because the writer is showing off, over-explaining, or doesn't trust the reader. Mark sections that move.\n7. Truth of detail. King insists on specific, observed details over generic description. Flag every lazy stock image — \"a beautiful sunset,\" \"her eyes sparkled,\" \"the room was dark and foreboding\" — and demand the concrete, unexpected detail that makes a reader believe.\n8. Use first words that come to mind. If you mean \"gave,\" don't write \"bestowed.\" If you mean \"poo,\" don't write \"excrement.\" Using the first word that comes to mind usually preserves the natural rhythm of thought. Changing it later usually creates a stilted, artificial voice.\n9. Pay attention to the \"look\" of the paragraph on the page. Big blocks of text look dense and uninviting (intellectual), while airy, short paragraphs look easy (readable).\n10. Description begins in the writer's imagination, but should finish in the reader's. Do not describe everything. Give the reader a few clear, sensory anchors, and let them fill in the rest. He warns against \"description for description's sake\" which halts the flow of the text.\n\nFor each issue found, quote the specific passage, explain the problem through the lens of the relevant King principle, and offer a revised version. At the end, write a single paragraph of overall assessment: what is alive in this prose and what is dead weight. Be direct. No encouragement for its own sake — but give full credit where something works.","shortDescription":"Prose critique applying Stephen King's craft principles","hasFocusText":false,"icon":null,"category":{"id":6,"name":"Famous writers","subheader":"Feedback from the best","position":5}},{"id":48,"name":"Chicago style formatter","prompt":"Review the following text and apply Chicago Manual of Style (17th edition) formatting conventions. Your job is strictly mechanical: change only formatting, punctuation patterns, and style conventions. Do not rewrite sentences, alter word choice, change tone, or \"improve\" the writing in any way.\nFocus on these Chicago conventions:\n\n1. Numbers: Spell out zero through one hundred and any whole number followed by hundred, thousand, or hundred thousand (two hundred, forty-five thousand). Use figures for numbers above one hundred that are not whole amounts (e.g., 103, 1,278). Always use figures for percentages, decimals, and statistical or technical contexts.\n2. Dates and times: Spell out months in full in running text (never abbreviate). Use the format month day, year with a comma after the year when in running text (January 5, 2024, was the deadline). Use numerals for time with lowercase a.m. and p.m. (no periods in current Chicago preference) or spell out times when using \"o'clock.\"\n3. Titles of works: Italicize titles of books, films, albums, journals, and other long-form works. Use quotation marks for chapters, articles, short stories, songs, and episodes.\n4. Percent: Use the word \"percent\" in humanistic text; the % symbol is acceptable in scientific or statistical contexts.\n5. Serial comma: Always use the Oxford (serial) comma before the conjunction in a list of three or more items.\n6. Hyphens and dashes: Hyphenate compound modifiers before a noun (well-known author) but not after (the author is well known). Use em dashes closed up with no spaces on either side. Use en dashes for number ranges (10–15), scores, and connections between equal terms (Chicago–New York flight).\n7. Abbreviations and acronyms: Spell out on first reference. Parenthetical acronym is optional if the abbreviation is widely known. Use periods in U.S. and U.K. when used as adjectives.\n8. Possessives: Form the possessive of singular nouns ending in s by adding 's (James's, the witness's), with limited traditional exceptions (Jesus', Moses').\n   Quotation marks and punctuation: Commas and periods always go inside closing quotation marks. Colons and semicolons go outside. Question marks and exclamation points go inside only if they are part of the quoted material.\n\nOutput the entire document reformatted to Chicago style, preserving all original content exactly. Then, at the end, add a section called \"Changes made\" listing every change: the original phrase in bold, an arrow, the corrected version in italic, and a brief parenthetical noting which Chicago rule applies. Group these by category. If a formatting choice is ambiguous or context-dependent, apply your best judgment in the document but flag it in the changes list with both options explained.","shortDescription":"Reformat text to Chicago Manual of Style without altering content","hasFocusText":false,"icon":null,"category":{"id":5,"name":"Formatting","subheader":"Boring stuff","position":4}},{"id":47,"name":"AP style formatter","prompt":"Review the following text and apply Associated Press (AP) Stylebook formatting conventions. Your job is strictly mechanical: change only formatting, punctuation patterns, and style conventions. Do not rewrite sentences, alter word choice, change tone, or \"improve\" the writing in any way.\n\nFocus on these AP conventions:\n\n1. Numbers: Spell out one through nine, use figures for 10 and above. Always use figures for ages, percentages, dollar amounts, dates, addresses, and dimensions.\n2. Dates and times: Use abbreviations for months with six or more letters when paired with a specific date (Jan., Feb., Aug., Sept., Oct., Nov., Dec.). Never abbreviate March, April, May, June, July. Use figures for time with a.m. and p.m. (lowercase, with periods). Use noon and midnight, not 12 p.m. or 12 a.m.\n3. Titles: Capitalize formal titles only when they appear directly before a name. Lowercase when used alone or after a name.\n4. Percent: Use the word \"percent\" rather than the % symbol in body text.\n   Compositions: Use quotation marks (not italics) around titles of books, movies, songs, TV shows, and other compositions.\n5. Abbreviations and acronyms: Spell out on first reference with the acronym in parentheses only if the acronym will be used again. Do not use Oxford commas unless omitting one causes ambiguity.\n6. Hyphens and dashes: Hyphenate compound modifiers before a noun (well-known author) but not after (the author is well known). Use em dashes with spaces on both sides.\n7. State names: Use AP abbreviations (not postal codes) after city names — e.g., Calif., not CA. Dateline cities that stand alone (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, etc.) do not need a state.\n\nOutput the entire document reformatted to AP style, preserving all original content exactly. Then, at the end, add a section called \"Changes made\" listing every change: the original phrase in bold, an arrow, the corrected version in italic, and a brief parenthetical noting which AP rule applies. Group these by category. If a formatting choice is ambiguous or context-dependent, apply your best judgment in the document but flag it in the changes list with both options explained.","shortDescription":"Reformat text to AP style without altering content","hasFocusText":false,"icon":null,"category":{"id":5,"name":"Formatting","subheader":"Boring stuff","position":4}},{"id":46,"name":"Punctuation","prompt":"Audit the following text exclusively for punctuation errors and weaknesses. Limit your analysis to commas, em dashes, en dashes, semicolons, and colons. Ignore all other issues — spelling, word choice, style, grammar unrelated to these five marks.\n\nCheck for these specific problems:\n\n1. Comma splices joining independent clauses without a conjunction.\n2. Missing serial commas in lists (apply Oxford comma as the standard).\n3. Commas incorrectly separating a subject from its verb or a verb from its object.\n4. Missing commas after introductory phrases, around nonrestrictive clauses, and before coordinating conjunctions in compound sentences.\n5. Semicolons used where a comma or period would be correct, or missing where two closely related independent clauses would benefit from one.\n6. Em dashes used where a comma or colon would be cleaner, or missing where a parenthetical interruption needs stronger separation.\n7. Hyphens mistakenly used in place of em dashes or en dashes.\n8. Colons placed after incomplete sentences or used redundantly before lists that flow naturally from the sentence.\n\nIf the author is clearly using a punctuation mark as a deliberate stylistic device — for rhythm, voice, or emphasis — flag it but note that it appears intentional.\nFor each issue found, provide only the quoted passage in bold, a one-sentence explanation naming the specific rule or principle involved, and a corrected version in italic. Don't add anything but the list of issues, starting with \"- \".\n\nIf the text is clean, say so. Do not invent problems to seem thorough.","shortDescription":"Catch misused commas, dashes, semicolons, and colons","hasFocusText":false,"icon":null,"category":{"id":3,"name":"Proofing","subheader":"Full-doc polishing","position":3}},{"id":45,"name":"Consistency audit","prompt":"Read the following text in its entirety before flagging anything. Your task is to identify every internal contradiction, inconsistency, or continuity error across the manuscript. This includes but is not limited to:\n\n1. Character names, nicknames, and spellings that change without explanation (e.g., \"Catherine\" becoming \"Katherine,\" a surname shifting mid-chapter).\n2. Ages, birthdays, and timelines that don't add up (e.g., a character said to be 30 in chapter 2 but 34 two years later in chapter 5).\n3. Physical descriptions that contradict earlier passages (e.g., blue eyes becoming brown, a scar switching hands).\n4. Locations and geography that shift (e.g., a house described as north of the river later placed south of it, a walk that takes ten minutes in one scene and an hour in another).\n5. Objects and props that appear, vanish, or change state without explanation (e.g., a character sets down a glass of wine that becomes coffee two paragraphs later).\n6. Temporal and seasonal errors (e.g., snow falling in a scene established as July, a Monday meeting followed by \"the next day, Wednesday\").\n7. Factual or procedural details that contradict themselves (e.g., a gun described as a revolver later said to have a safety, a character allergic to shellfish eating shrimp without consequence).\n\nDo not flag differences that are clearly intentional (an unreliable narrator contradicting themselves in a way that serves the story, a character lying). If you're unsure whether a discrepancy is intentional, flag it anyway and note that it may be deliberate.\nFor each issue found, provide the two or more contradicting passages as direct quotes with their approximate locations (chapter, section, or paragraph number), a brief explanation of the conflict, and a question the author should resolve. Group findings by category using the numbered categories above.\nIf no issues are found in a given category, skip it entirely.\n\nIf the text is clean, say so. Do not invent problems to seem thorough.","shortDescription":"Catch contradictions in names, dates, facts, and details","hasFocusText":false,"icon":null,"category":{"id":3,"name":"Proofing","subheader":"Full-doc polishing","position":3}},{"id":44,"name":"Fact checker","prompt":"Analyze the following text and identify every factual claim that could be verified or disputed. Focus on: statistical figures and percentages, historical dates and events, scientific assertions, attributed quotes, causal relationships presented as established fact, superlatives (\"the largest,\" \"the first,\" \"the only\"), and any statement that implies broad consensus (\"studies show,\" \"experts agree,\" \"it is well known\").\n\n1. Ignore clearly marked opinions, hypotheticals, and rhetorical flourishes. If a claim is presented with hedging language (\"roughly,\" \"some researchers suggest\"), note the hedge but still evaluate the underlying assertion.\n2. For each flagged claim, provide the exact quote in bold, then a verdict: Accurate, Misleading, Inaccurate, Unverifiable, or Needs Context. Follow with a one-sentence explanation and, where possible, a corrected or more precise version in italic.\n3. \"Misleading\" means technically true but framed in a way that leads to a wrong conclusion. \"Needs Context\" means the claim is true only under specific conditions that the text omits.\n4. If the text cites a source, evaluate whether the claim actually matches what that source says. Flag mischaracterizations of cited research, cherry-picked data, and conclusions that overreach the evidence.\n\nIf the text is clean, say so. Do not invent problems to seem thorough.","shortDescription":"Flag unsupported, misleading, or false factual claims in text","hasFocusText":false,"icon":"document-check","category":{"id":3,"name":"Proofing","subheader":"Full-doc polishing","position":3}},{"id":43,"name":"Articles audit","prompt":"Analyze the following text exclusively for errors and awkward usage of English articles (a, an, the) and zero articles. Ignore every other grammar, style, or spelling issue completely.\n\nCheck for these specific problems:\n\n1. Missing articles where a native speaker would expect one (\"I went to store\" instead of \"I went to the store\").\n2. Unnecessary articles where none is needed, especially before abstract nouns, generalizations, and uncountable nouns used in a general sense (\"The love is important\").\n3. Wrong choice between definite and indefinite articles (\"I saw the dog\" when the dog hasn't been introduced vs. \"I saw a dog\").\n4. Wrong choice between \"a\" and \"an\" based on the following sound.\n   Missing or incorrect articles with geographic names, institutions, and proper nouns that follow special conventions (\"the United States\" but not \"the France\").\n5. Articles misused with singular vs. plural nouns (\"a informations,\" \"an equipment\").\n6. Subtle cases where article choice changes meaning in ways the writer likely didn't intend (\"she went to school\" vs. \"she went to the school\").\n\nFor each issue found, provide only the quote in bold, a brief explanation of the rule involved, and a corrected version in italic. If the text contains a deliberate stylistic omission — such as in a headline, title, note, or telegram-style fragment — note it but don't count it as an error. If the text is clean, say so. Do not invent problems to seem thorough.","shortDescription":"Find and fix misused, missing, or unnecessary articles","hasFocusText":false,"icon":null,"category":{"id":3,"name":"Proofing","subheader":"Full-doc polishing","position":3}},{"id":42,"name":"Tense precision check","prompt":"Analyze the following text for tense-related problems across the full range of English tense and aspect usage. Go beyond what grammar checkers catch: this is not just about tense shifts but about whether every verb form is the most precise and natural choice for what the writer is trying to express.\n\n1. Check whether simple, continuous, and perfect aspects are used correctly and idiomatically. Flag cases where a writer uses present simple when present continuous would capture an ongoing or temporary state, or where present perfect is used when simple past would be more natural given a definite time reference, and vice versa. Pay attention to the difference between completed and uncompleted actions, between states and activities, and between experience and specific events.\n2. Evaluate past perfect usage. Flag both overuse, where writers stack had-verbs out of vague caution when simple past would be clearer, and underuse, where the absence of past perfect creates ambiguity about the order of events.\n3. Look for stative verbs incorrectly placed in continuous forms and for dynamic verbs flattened into simple forms where the progressive would better capture duration or incompleteness. Note that some verbs shift meaning between stative and dynamic use, and evaluate whether the writer's choice reflects the intended meaning.\n4. Check conditional and hypothetical constructions for correct pairing of tenses. Flag mismatches between if-clauses and main clauses, confusion between real and unreal conditionals, and cases where would appears in contexts that call for simple past or present.\n5. Examine how habitual actions, general truths, and recurring events are expressed. Flag cases where the chosen tense implies a one-time event when the context clearly describes a pattern, or where a habitual marker clashes with the verb form.\n6. In narration, respect the dominant tense of each section. Identify the governing tense first, then flag only verbs that break from it without clear justification. Allow intentional tense shifts that serve a narrative purpose, but flag them if the transition is clumsy or the return to the base tense is missing.\n\nFor each issue found, provide only the quoted phrase in bold, a one-sentence explanation identifying the specific tense problem and what meaning the current form actually conveys versus what the writer likely intended, and a suggested revision in italic that preserves the author's voice. If a tense choice is defensible but reads as likely unintentional, flag it and note the ambiguity. If the text is clean, say so. Do not invent problems to seem thorough.","shortDescription":"Find and fix incorrect, awkward, or imprecise tense usage","hasFocusText":false,"icon":"runner","category":{"id":3,"name":"Proofing","subheader":"Full-doc polishing","position":3}},{"id":41,"name":"Logic check","prompt":"Analyze the following text for logical errors, unsupported claims, and structural weaknesses in reasoning.\n\n1. Unsupported assertions: claims presented as fact without evidence, sourcing, or sufficient argumentation.\n2. Logical fallacies: false dichotomies, straw men, slippery slopes, circular reasoning, post hoc ergo propter hoc, hasty generalizations, appeals to authority without substance, and any other formal or informal fallacy.\n3. Contradictions: places where the text argues against itself, whether within a single paragraph or across sections.\n4. Non sequiturs: conclusions that do not follow from the premises given.\n5. Burden-of-proof shifts: moments where the author treats an unproven claim as the default position and demands the reader disprove it.\n6. Hidden assumptions: unstated premises the argument silently depends on, which a skeptical reader would challenge.\n7. Scope problems: sweeping conclusions drawn from narrow evidence, or specific claims supported only by vague generalities.\n8. Missing counterarguments: obvious objections a thoughtful opponent would raise that the text fails to address or even acknowledge.\n\nFor each issue found, provide the exact quote or paraphrase in bold, a one-sentence diagnosis naming the specific problem, and a brief suggestion for how the author could fix or strengthen the passage in italic. Where possible, distinguish between a fixable weakness (the point could hold with better support) and a fatal flaw (the point collapses under scrutiny).\nIf the text makes a claim that is widely accepted and treating it as common knowledge is reasonable for the target audience, do not flag it merely for lacking a citation. Use judgment about what genuinely needs support versus what would be pedantic to challenge.\nIf a passage is ambiguous — it could be a deliberate rhetorical simplification or a genuine reasoning error — flag it anyway but note the ambiguity.","shortDescription":"Find reasoning gaps, fallacies, and weak arguments\n","hasFocusText":false,"icon":"puzzle","category":{"id":2,"name":"Editing","subheader":"Full-doc checks","position":2}},{"id":40,"name":"Kindle highlights & notes","prompt":"You are processing a raw export of Kindle highlights and notes. The goal is to turn a flat list of clippings into a structured, scannable reference document a writer can use when drafting.\nInput: A Kindle highlights export (typically from \"My Clippings.txt\" or a Readwise/Kindle notebook export). It may contain highlight text, location numbers, page numbers, date stamps, personal notes, and duplicate or near-duplicate entries.\n\nSteps\n\n1. Group by theme. Cluster the highlights into thematic sections based on their content — not by chapter order. A highlight about grief from chapter 2 and one from chapter 11 belong together. Use your judgment; aim for 4–8 sections for a typical book's worth of highlights, fewer for shorter exports.\n2. Structure with headings. Give each thematic section a ## heading that names the theme in 2–5 words — descriptive, not clever. Within a section, if a natural sub-grouping emerges, use ### subheadings.\n3. For each section add a short summary with bullet points summarizing the contents.\n4. Strip unnecessary metadata. Remove date/time stamps and separator lines. Relocate all location numbers, page numbers and chapter reference to the end of the quote.\n5. Preserve the author's language exactly. Highlights are direct quotations. Do not paraphrase, compress, or alter the wording. Present each highlight as its own paragraph within its section.\n6. Surface personal notes. If the reader attached a note to a highlight, place it directly below the highlight in italics, prefixed with \"Note:\" — e.g., Note: possible epigraph for ch. 3. These are the reader's thinking and are often more valuable than the highlights themselves.\n7. Mark the strongest material. Bold the highlights that carry the highest density of memorable language, surprising ideas, or usable evidence — the passages the writer would reach for first. Aim for roughly 10–15% of highlights to be bolded.\n\nGuiding principles\n\n- The original chapter sequence is less useful than thematic proximity. A writer searching for \"everything this author said about memory\" shouldn't have to scan the whole file.\n- When in doubt about which section a highlight belongs to, place it in the more specific group rather than a catch-all.\n- Never discard a highlight. If it resists categorization, place it in a ## Miscellaneous section at the end.","shortDescription":"Turn a Kindle export into a structured markdown","hasFocusText":false,"icon":null,"category":{"id":4,"name":"Research","subheader":"Gather and analyze material","position":0}},{"id":39,"name":"Quotes and facts","prompt":"You are a research assistant helping a writer extract reusable material from a source document. The goal is to produce a structured reference sheet of direct quotes and key facts that can be pulled into a manuscript without re-reading the original.\n\nInput: A document — article, report, book chapter, interview, essay, or similar text.\n\nSteps\n\n1. Read for substance. Identify every passage that contains a concrete fact, a striking claim, a vivid image, or language worth quoting directly. Skip filler, hedging, boilerplate, and anything that merely restates what's already captured.\n2. Extract direct quotes. Pull exact quotes that are memorable, well-phrased, or carry authority — the kind a writer would want to use verbatim. Keep each quote as short as possible while preserving its punch. Include enough surrounding words for the quote to make sense on its own. Attribute each quote: name and role if available, otherwise a clear descriptor (e.g., \"the report's authors,\" \"an unnamed senior official\").\n3. Extract key facts. Capture concrete data points: numbers, dates, names, places, cause-and-effect relationships, and any claim that could serve as evidence in an argument. State each fact in one plain sentence. Where relevant, note the original source the document is citing (e.g., \"per a 2023 WHO report\").\n4. Flag contradictions and gaps. If the document contradicts itself, presents competing claims, or makes a significant assertion without sourcing it, note this briefly in a bracketed comment — e.g., [unsourced claim], [contradicts the figure given earlier].\n5. Organize by topic. Group quotes and facts under ## headings by subject, not by the order they appear in the document. Choose short, descriptive headings. Within each section, lead with the strongest material.\n\nOutput format (Markdown)\n\nFor each topic section:\n\n## Topic Heading\n\nQuotes\n\n\"Exact quote here.\" — Attribution, if there is more than one source\n\"Another quote.\" — Attribution, if there is more than one source\n\nFacts\n\nFact stated in one sentence.\nAnother fact. [Source, if there is more than one source]\n\nNotes\n\n[Any contradictions, gaps, or caveats worth flagging]\n\nGuiding principles\n\n1. Precision over volume. Ten sharp quotes beat thirty mediocre ones. If a passage is interesting but not quotable, distill it into a fact instead.\n2. Preserve exact wording in quotes. Never paraphrase inside quotation marks.\n3. A writer should be able to scan this sheet in two minutes and find what they need.","shortDescription":"Extract quotes and key facts from a document","hasFocusText":false,"icon":null,"category":{"id":4,"name":"Research","subheader":"Gather and analyze material","position":0}},{"id":38,"name":"Make a timeline","prompt":"You are building a chronological timeline from a writer's raw source material. The goal is to produce a clean, scannable list of dated events that a writer can use as a structural spine for a narrative.\nInput: One or more sources of any kind — research notes, interview transcripts, diary entries, articles, chronologies, Wikipedia passages, photographs with captions, or any mix of these.\n\nSteps\n\n1. Extract every event. Read through all sources and identify every discrete event that can be placed in time. An \"event\" is anything that happened: a birth, a meeting, a decision, a battle, a publication, a departure, a death. Include small events if they carry narrative weight — a letter sent, a diagnosis received, a conversation overheard.\n2. Assign dates. Pin each event to the most specific date the sources support. Use the full date when available (14 June 1924). When only a month, season, or year is known, use that (March 1924; spring 1924; 1924). When the timing is approximate or inferred, flag it (c. 1924; late 1924; before June 1924).\n3. Deduplicate and reconcile. If multiple sources describe the same event, merge them into a single entry. If sources conflict on dating, note the discrepancy in brackets — e.g., [Source A says June; Source B says August].\n4. Write short descriptions. Each entry gets one to two sentences maximum. Lead with what happened, then add just enough context to make the entry useful on its own. Be concrete: names, places, numbers. No interpretation, no adjectives that editorialize.\n5. Sort chronologically. Order all entries from earliest to latest. Group undated or vaguely dated events at the end under a separate heading: \"Undated / approximate.\"\n6. Tag source references. After each entry, note in parentheses which source or sources it came from, using short labels — e.g., (interview), (diary), (NYT article), (notes p. 12). If the writer hasn't labeled the sources, assign simple labels (Source 1, Source 2, etc.) and list the key at the top.\n\nOutput format\n\n## Year\n\n### Month (if applicable)\n\n**[Date, if applicable] — Short Description of event.**\nExtended description of event. [source, if applicable]\n\nGuiding principles\n\n1. Capture everything first, curate later. The writer needs completeness more than elegance at this stage. When in doubt, include the event.\n2. Stay neutral. Describe what happened, not what it meant. The writer will supply the interpretation.\n3. Granularity matters. Don't collapse a sequence of events into a summary. \"He moved to Paris, got a job at the Herald, and met Hadley\" is three entries, not one.","shortDescription":"A timeline of events from raw sources","hasFocusText":false,"icon":null,"category":{"id":4,"name":"Research","subheader":"Gather and analyze material","position":0}},{"id":37,"name":"Find key themes","prompt":"You are analyzing source material to extract and organize its key themes. The goal is to produce a concise thematic map a writer can use to see what a text is really about — beneath the surface narrative — so they can decide what to pursue, what to combine across sources, and what's missing.\n\nInput: One or more pieces of source material (articles, transcripts, book chapters, research papers, field notes, etc.).\n\nSteps\n\n1. Read for substance, not structure. Ignore how the material is organized. Instead, track the ideas, tensions, and subjects that keep surfacing — whether stated explicitly or embedded in anecdotes, examples, and asides.\n2. Identify major themes. Name 3–7 themes using short, precise labels — not vague abstractions. \"The cost of assimilation\" is useful; \"Identity\" is not. Each theme should be specific enough that a writer immediately understands what material falls under it and why it matters.\n3. Write a theme brief for each. In 2–4 sentences, describe what the source actually says or reveals about this theme. Include the strongest specific evidence — a scene, a data point, a quote fragment (kept under 12 words), a contradiction. Don't editorialize or interpret beyond what the material supports.\n4. Note tensions and contradictions. If the source material conflicts with itself — a subject says one thing but an anecdote suggests another, or data points pull in opposite directions — flag this under the relevant theme. These are often where the best writing lives.\n   Identify underdeveloped threads. List 2–4 topics the material touches on but doesn't develop. These are leads: things a writer might want to investigate further through additional research or interviews.\n5. Map theme relationships. End with a short paragraph (3–5 sentences) describing how the major themes connect, overlap, or create tension with one another. This is the conceptual skeleton of the material.\n\nGuiding principles\n\n- Be specific and grounded. Every theme should be traceable to concrete moments in the source material. If you can't point to evidence, it's not a theme — it's a guess.\n- Name things precisely. The difference between a useful thematic summary and a useless one is almost always specificity. Prefer \"Nurses absorbing administrative work that used to be done by clerks\" over \"Workplace challenges.\"\n- Stay descriptive, not prescriptive. Your job is to show the writer what's there, not to tell them what their piece should argue. Don't propose a thesis.\n- Themes aren't topics. A topic is \"immigration.\" A theme is \"the guilt of leaving aging parents behind.\" Look for the emotional, intellectual, or structural core beneath the subject matter.\n- Output in Markdown, using ## for each theme and ### for the tensions and underdeveloped threads sections.","shortDescription":"Summarize key themes from source material","hasFocusText":false,"icon":null,"category":{"id":4,"name":"Research","subheader":"Gather and analyze material","position":0}},{"id":36,"name":"Process transcript","prompt":"You are processing a verbatim automatic transcription of an interview. The goal is to turn it into a clean, scannable reference document a writer can use as source material for a book.\n\nInput: A raw transcript that may contain timecodes, speaker labels, filler words, and transcription artifacts.\n\nSteps\n\n1. Strip metadata. Remove all timecodes, speaker labels, and transcription artifacts.\n2. Remove the interviewer. Delete the interviewer's questions. If a question provides essential context for understanding the response, fold that context into a heading or a brief bracketed note — e.g., [on his childhood in Odessa].\n3. Clean the interviewee's speech. Remove filler words (um, uh, you know), false starts, and repetitions. Cut passages that are purely phatic or circular and carry no factual, emotional, or stylistic value. Preserve the speaker's voice: keep distinctive phrasing, dialect, unusual word choices, vivid digressions, and rough edges that reveal personality — even when they aren't strictly \"on topic.\"\n4. Structure with headings. Insert `##` headings and `###` subheadings that summarize the topic of each section. Headings should be short and descriptive, not interpretive.\n5. Highlight key fragments. Bold the passages that carry the highest density of concrete facts, strong emotion, or striking language — the lines a writer would highlight with a marker. Aim for roughly 10–15% of the text to be bolded; if everything is highlighted, nothing is.\n\nGuiding principles\n\n- Cut aggressively for clarity, but err on the side of keeping too much rather than too little. The writer can always cut more; they can't recover what's deleted.\n- The final text should read as a coherent first-person monologue, not a Q\\&A.","shortDescription":"Turn a raw transcript into structured markdown","hasFocusText":false,"icon":null,"category":{"id":4,"name":"Research","subheader":"Gather and analyze material","position":0}},{"id":35,"name":"Analyze","prompt":"Analyze a part of a larger text. Look at precision, sound, register, syntax, imagery, and contextual fit — but only the dimensions that actually matter for this fragment. Most fragments need one or two observations, not six. If it works, say so in a sentence and say why. If something is off, name it, explain why, and suggest a fix. Offer two or three alternatives at different distances from the original so the writer stays in control.\nJudge by the standards of prose that is laconic, expressive, and willing to bend grammar for effect. Respect the writer's style — make their intentions land harder, not rewrite toward your taste. Be direct and brief. Match the concision you're asking of the writer.","shortDescription":"Assess word choice and meaning ","hasFocusText":true,"icon":null,"category":{"id":1,"name":"Words & sentences","subheader":"Granular suggestions","position":1}},{"id":34,"name":"Combine sentences into one","prompt":"Input: A text and a focus passage of a few short sentences that need to be merged into a single, longer sentence.\n\nTask\nCombine the given sentences into one well-constructed sentence. Produce exactly 3 variants.\n\nEach variant should:\n\n- Preserve every substantive idea from the original sentences. Don't drop facts, images, or qualifications.\n- Maintain the writer's voice. Match the diction, register, and level of formality visible in the surrounding context.\n- Use a different syntactic strategy — e.g., one variant might use subordinate clauses, another a participial phrase, another a colon or dash construction. The point is to give the writer genuinely distinct options, not three cosmetic rearrangements.\n- Read as a natural long sentence, not a short sentence with conjunctions stapled on. Avoid chains of \"and … and … and.\"\n\nOutput format\nNo preamble, no commentary beyond the note. Three variants, nothing else.","shortDescription":"A few sentences → one long sentence","hasFocusText":true,"icon":null,"category":{"id":1,"name":"Words & sentences","subheader":"Granular suggestions","position":1}},{"id":33,"name":"General grammar check","prompt":"Analyze the following text for grammar errors, from obvious mistakes to subtle imperfections a careful editor would catch. Focus on: incorrect or inconsistent verb tenses, missing or wrong articles, subject-verb agreement errors, dangling or misplaced modifiers, comma splices, pronoun-antecedent issues, incorrect parallelism, and any other mechanical problems.\nThis text is intended to be colloquial in tone. Minor rule-bending is acceptable when it clearly serves a stylistic purpose: intentional sentence fragments, starting sentences with conjunctions, ending sentences with prepositions, and similar informal choices should be left alone. Only flag a fragment if it genuinely reads as accidental or creates confusion.\nFor each issue found, provide the quote itself in bold, a brief explanation of the specific grammar rule being broken, and a corrected version in italic that preserves the original meaning and tone. If a fix could go more than one way, note the options and recommend one.\nGroup your findings into two sections: Clear Errors (unambiguous grammar mistakes) and Judgment Calls (technically incorrect but possibly intentional — flag these but acknowledge the ambiguity).\nIf the text is clean, say so. Do not invent problems to seem thorough.","shortDescription":"Catch grammar mistakes and subtle imperfections","hasFocusText":false,"icon":"document-check","category":{"id":3,"name":"Proofing","subheader":"Full-doc polishing","position":3}},{"id":32,"name":"Native speaker check","prompt":"Analyze the following text for ESL errors and any phrasing that would sound unnatural, awkward, or off to a native English speaker. Focus on subtle issues that grammar checkers typically miss: unidiomatic word combinations, slightly wrong prepositions, unusual word order, register mismatches, awkward collocations, and phrasing that is technically correct but that no native speaker would actually use.\nThis text is intended to be colloquial in tone, so minor rule-bending is acceptable when it serves a clear stylistic purpose. Ignore intentional sentence fragments, informal contractions and writer's choices that clearly serve a creative purpose (fresh metaphors, unusual syntax, etc).\nDon't add anything but the list of problematic phrases, starting with \"- \". For each issue found, provide only the quote itself in bold, a one-sentence explanation of why it sounds off, and a suggested revision that preserves the original meaning and tone in italic.\nIf a passage is ambiguous — it could be a deliberate stylistic choice or a genuine error — flag it anyway but note the ambiguity.","shortDescription":"Identify and rewrite ESL artifacts","hasFocusText":false,"icon":"reader","category":{"id":3,"name":"Proofing","subheader":"Full-doc polishing","position":3}},{"id":30,"name":"'Show, don't tell' audit","prompt":"Analyze the following text for instances where emotion, character traits, or atmosphere are stated abstractly rather than conveyed through concrete detail. Focus on these categories:\n\n1. Named emotions — sentences that label a feeling outright (\"She was angry,\" \"He felt sad,\" \"A sense of dread filled the room\"). Flag any instance where an emotion word does the work that action, sensation, or detail should be doing.\n2. Summary character descriptions — passages that announce a trait instead of dramatizing it (\"He was a generous man,\" \"She had a sharp wit\"). These rob the reader of the chance to infer character from behavior.\n3. Atmospheric shorthand — vague scene-setting that tells the reader what to feel rather than building the feeling through specifics (\"The place was creepy,\" \"It was a beautiful day,\" \"The tension was palpable\").\n4. Motivational exposition — narration that explains why a character does something instead of letting the action and context speak for itself (\"Because she wanted to impress him, she wore her best dress\").\n5. Redundant telling after showing — cases where the text successfully shows something through detail but then immediately undercuts it by explaining the point (\"He slammed the door and stormed down the hall. He was furious.\"). Flag the redundant line.\n\nFor each instance found, provide the original passage in bold, a brief explanation of why it reads as telling, and a rewritten alternative in italic that conveys the same meaning through specific sensory details, body language, dialogue, action, or environment. Match the voice, tense, and point of view of the original.\nDo not flag deliberate stylistic compression — quick transitional summaries that skip across time, or intentional narrative distance used for ironic or comedic effect. If a passage is borderline, flag it but note that it may be a conscious craft choice.","shortDescription":"Find and rewrite abstract telling","hasFocusText":false,"icon":"runner","category":{"id":2,"name":"Editing","subheader":"Full-doc checks","position":2}},{"id":29,"name":"Redundancy sweep","prompt":"Analyze the following text for every form of redundancy that weakens the writing. Go beyond surface-level repetition and catch the subtler problems that self-editing typically misses.\n\n1. Tautologies and semantic doubles. Catch phrases where two words say the same thing: \"end result,\" \"past history,\" \"completely unanimous,\" and less obvious cases where a modifier merely restates what the noun already implies.\n2. Filler and hedge words. Identify words that add no meaning and only dilute the sentence.\n3. Over-explanation. Flag sentences or clauses that restate a point the reader has already absorbed — the second sentence that says what the first sentence already said, the subordinate clause that explains a metaphor that was already clear.\n4. Redundant stage direction. Catch narration that tells the reader what a line of dialogue or an action already showed, or that describes a cause and then describes the obvious effect.\n\nFor each issue found, provide the quoted phrase or passage in bold, a brief explanation of the problem, and a tightened revision in italic. If cutting the redundancy requires restructuring the surrounding sentence, show the full revised sentence.\nIf a repetition appears intentional — serving rhythm, emphasis, or voice — flag it anyway but note that it reads as a deliberate choice so the writer can confirm.\nDo not rephrase anything that is not redundant. Do not add new ideas, restructure paragraphs, or alter the writer's voice. The goal is strictly subtraction: same meaning, fewer words.","shortDescription":"Strip deadweight from prose","hasFocusText":false,"icon":"paragraph","category":{"id":2,"name":"Editing","subheader":"Full-doc checks","position":2}},{"id":28,"name":"Repetition audit","prompt":"Analyze the following text for unintentional word repetitions that weaken the prose. Look beyond simple same-word repeats and catch all forms of repetitive patterning:\n\n1. Root-word echoes: words sharing the same root appearing in close proximity (e.g., \"decide\" and \"decision\" in adjacent sentences, \"beauty\" near \"beautiful,\" \"create\" followed by \"creation\").\n2. Crutch words: any word or phrase that appears with unusual frequency across the full text, suggesting an unconscious habit rather than a deliberate choice (e.g., overuse of \"just,\" \"really,\" \"seemed to,\" \"something,\" \"slightly\").\n3. Specific, rare words that stand out but appear more than once in the text making it odd (like \"flabbergasted\")\n\nDo not flag repetition that clearly serves a stylistic purpose: deliberate parallel structures, anaphora, refrains, thematic callbacks, or emphatic doubling where the repetition creates rhythm or rhetorical force. When in doubt whether a repetition is intentional or accidental, flag it but note the ambiguity.\n\nFor each issue found, provide only the repeated words or phrases in bold with enough surrounding context to locate them, a one-sentence explanation of the problem, and a suggested revision in italic that eliminates the echo while preserving meaning and tone.","shortDescription":"Find and fix unintentional word repetitions","hasFocusText":false,"icon":"pair","category":{"id":2,"name":"Editing","subheader":"Full-doc checks","position":2}},{"id":27,"name":"Cliché & dead language","prompt":"Analyze the following text for clichés, dead metaphors, overused phrases, and weak or vague vocabulary. Your job is not to sanitize the text or strip it of all familiar language — it is to find the spots where the writing goes on autopilot and loses its power.\n\n1. Flag phrases that have been repeated so often across published writing that they no longer create any image or feeling in the reader's mind. These include dead metaphors (e.g., \"a sea of faces,\" \"the heart of the matter\"), stock intensifiers (e.g., \"utterly devastating,\" \"deeply problematic\"), filler hedges (e.g., \"it should be noted that,\" \"it is worth mentioning\"), and generic emotional shorthand (e.g., \"sent shivers down my spine,\" \"a rollercoaster of emotions\").\n2. Do not flag idioms and set phrases that are doing honest structural work — connecting ideas, maintaining rhythm, or staying invisible in service of the sentence.\n3. Flag vague, low-resolution words that avoid doing the work of precision: \"interesting,\" \"important,\" \"various,\" \"significant,\" \"nice,\" \"things,\" \"aspects,\" and similar. These are not always wrong, but when a more specific word would sharpen the sentence, note it.\n4. If a phrase is technically a cliché but is being used with clear self-awareness, irony, or subversion, leave it alone and do not flag it.\n\nOutput each flagged item as a bullet starting with \"- \". For each flagged item, provide the quoted phrase in bold, a one-sentence explanation of why it weakens the text in this specific context, and — critically — do not offer a replacement. Instead, describe in one sentence what the writer seems to be reaching for (the underlying image, feeling, or idea), so they can find their own language for it.","shortDescription":"Flag overused phrases and weak vocabulary","hasFocusText":false,"icon":"stamp","category":{"id":2,"name":"Editing","subheader":"Full-doc checks","position":2}},{"id":25,"name":"Manuscript diagnostic","prompt":"Read the following literary text carefully and provide a detailed diagnostic assessment. Your goal is to give the writer an honest, balanced picture of what's working and what isn't, so they can improve deliberately rather than blindly.\n\n1. Begin with a brief overall impression (3–5 sentences). What is the piece doing, and how well is it doing it? Name the single strongest quality and the single most pressing problem.\n2. Then assess each of the following dimensions separately. For each one, quote specific passages to support your points. Don't just name problems — explain the mechanism: why something works or fails and what effect it has on the reader.\n\n- Style and voice: Is the prose distinctive? Is the diction precise or vague, fresh or clichéd? Flag any passages where the language is doing something genuinely interesting. Flag any where it turns flat, overwritten, or inconsistent in register.\n- Structure and pacing: Does the piece earn its length? Are there sections that drag, feel rushed, or could be reordered for stronger effect? Is information delivered at the right moments?\n- Characterization and dialogue (if applicable): Do characters feel specific and dimensional or generic? Does dialogue sound like speech or like written language dressed up as speech?\n- Imagery, metaphor, and sensory detail: Are the figurative choices original and load-bearing, or decorative and imprecise? Are there missed opportunities where concrete detail would strengthen an abstract passage?\n- Emotional and intellectual impact: Does the piece land? Are there moments of genuine power? Are there moments that aim for an effect and miss — and if so, why?\n\n3. Close with a prioritized action list: three concrete, specific revisions ranked by how much each one would improve the piece. For each, reference the exact passage or pattern and describe what to do differently.\n\nBe direct. Don't soften criticism with qualifiers, but ground every negative judgment in evidence from the text. Praise should be equally specific — never generic encouragement. The writer wants to know exactly where their strengths are so they can build on them, not just that \"the writing shows promise.\"","shortDescription":"Balanced assessment of strengths and weaknesses","hasFocusText":false,"icon":"scale","category":{"id":2,"name":"Editing","subheader":"Full-doc checks","position":2}},{"id":22,"name":"Punch up a passage","prompt":"Take a part of a text and make it punchier — more vivid, more dynamic, harder to look away from — without breaking its fit within the whole.\n\nInput\nFull text: The complete piece, provided for context. Do not rewrite it.\nPart of the text to punch up: The specific passage to rework, marked by the writer.\n\nSteps\n\n1. Read the full text first. Internalize the voice, tone, register, pacing, and intent. Note whether the style leans literary, journalistic, conversational, essayistic, sardonic, lyrical, etc. Your variants must sound like they belong in this text, not in a better-sounding different one.\n2. Diagnose the segment. Before rewriting, identify in one sentence what's making it feel flat — e.g., too many abstractions, passive construction drains the energy, the rhythm is monotonous, it explains what it should show, the sentence lengths are too uniform, the ending deflates.\n3. Generate up to 7 variants. Each should be a meaningfully different attempt, not a minor word-swap. Vary your tactics across the set:\n\nSharpen the verbs\nCut dead weight (often the fastest fix)\nRestructure for rhythm — short sentence after long, fragment after full clause\nSwap abstraction for a concrete image or sensory detail\nShift the syntax to create surprise or emphasis\nCompress: say it in half the words\nEscalate the emotional register without tipping into melodrama\n\nLabel each variant with a brief tag describing the move you made — e.g., [compressed], [reordered for punch], [concrete image swap].\nPreserve boundaries. Keep each variant close to the original length (no more than ±30%) unless compression is the whole point. Do not alter meaning, factual content, or point of view. Do not bleed into adjacent sentences.\n\nGuiding principles\n\n- Punchy ≠ loud. A quiet sentence with perfect timing hits harder than an overwrought one. Match the energy the context demands.\n- Respect the writer's voice. You are not imposing your style; you are turning up the dial on theirs.\n- Every variant should be usable as-is — a drop-in replacement, not a suggestion that needs further editing.\n- If the segment is already strong and you can only find 3 genuinely better versions, give 3. Never pad with lateral moves.","shortDescription":"Make a passage more expressive and dynamic","hasFocusText":true,"icon":null,"category":{"id":1,"name":"Words & sentences","subheader":"Granular suggestions","position":1}},{"id":20,"name":"Suggest alternatives","prompt":"You are helping a writer explore alternative ways to express a specific word, phrase, or passage within a larger text. The goal is to produce a concise list of substitutions the writer can scan quickly and either use directly or riff on.\n\nInput: Two clearly marked pieces of text. TEXT: the full paragraph or passage surrounding the segment in question. PART TO FOCUS ON: the specific word, phrase, or sentence the writer wants alternatives for.\n\nSteps\n\n1. Read the context closely. Before generating anything, identify the tone, register, rhythm, and intent of the surrounding text. Every alternative must drop into the existing sentence without breaking voice or flow.\n2. Generate up to ten alternatives. You may provide fewer if the possibilities are genuinely limited. Do not pad the list to reach ten. Order them from most straightforward to most unexpected.\n3. Prioritize clarity and precision. The first several options should be the cleanest, most direct substitutions — the kind a careful editor would reach for. These should preserve the original meaning with minimal interpretation.\n4. Include two or three bolder options at the end. These can shift the register, compress the idea, use a metaphor, or reframe the emphasis. They exist to spark new thinking, not to show off. If nothing genuinely interesting comes to mind, skip this and keep the list short.\n5. Respect the original scope. If the target is a single word, offer single words or short phrases. If it is a full sentence, offer full sentences. Do not inflate a word-level request into paragraph-level rewrites.\n\nOutput format: Each alternative on its own line starting with \"- \", with no commentary or justification. If a substitution requires a minor adjustment to the surrounding grammar, show the adjusted fragment in brackets after it — e.g., \"relentless [requires dropping 'very' before it]\". Otherwise, keep every line to the replacement text and nothing else.","shortDescription":"Rewrite options for a word or passage","hasFocusText":true,"icon":null,"category":{"id":1,"name":"Words & sentences","subheader":"Granular suggestions","position":1}},{"id":13,"name":"Split long sentences","prompt":"You are editing a passage from a work in progress. The goal is to break long, overloaded sentences into shorter ones that are easier to read, without flattening the writer's style.\n\nInput: Two clearly marked pieces of text. TEXT: the full paragraph or passage surrounding the segment in question. PART TO FOCUS ON: the specific word, phrase, or sentence the writer wants alternatives for.\n\nSteps\n\n1. Read the context closely. Before generating anything, identify the tone, register, rhythm, and intent of the surrounding text. Note the writer's stylistic tendencies: rhythm, vocabulary level, use of fragments, degree of formality, any recurring patterns.\n\n2. Analyze the original part. Identify each independent idea, clause, or image packed into the sentence(s).\n\n3. Produce three variants. Each variant should rewrite the full passage using shorter sentences. The three variants should differ meaningfully in approach, not just in comma placement. For example, one might prioritize blunt, punchy rhythm; another might keep a more flowing cadence with short-medium alternation; a third might rearrange the order of ideas for better emphasis.\n\nOUTPUT\n\nMarkdown. Each alternative on its own line starting with \"- \", with no commentary or justification, only after each variant, add a single-line note in bold explaining what that version prioritizes and what it trades away — e.g., **Prioritizes punch and speed; sacrifices some nuance in the qualifying clause**\n\nGuiding principles\n\n- Shorter does not mean dumbed down. Preserve the writer's vocabulary, tone, and level of complexity. The goal is structural clarity, not simplification.\n- Do not add new ideas, hedges, or transitions that weren't implicit in the original. Do not delete meaning. Every piece of information in the source should survive in the rewrite.\n- Vary sentence length within each variant. A wall of eight-word sentences is just as hard to read as the original problem. Mix short and medium.\n- Keep the passage roughly the same total length. If the rewrite is significantly longer, you've added filler.","shortDescription":"One long sentence → a few short sentences","hasFocusText":true,"icon":null,"category":{"id":1,"name":"Words & sentences","subheader":"Granular suggestions","position":1}},{"id":9,"name":"Fresh metaphors","prompt":"You are helping a writer find a metaphor for a specific moment in their text. The goal is to produce a short list of metaphor options that fit the tone, subject, and rhythm of the surrounding writing. The writer will scan the list and either use one directly, adapt it, or let it trigger something better.\n\nInput: Two clearly marked pieces of text. TEXT: the full paragraph or passage providing context. PART TO FOCUS ON: the specific sentence, clause, or phrase where the writer wants a metaphor inserted or substituted.\n\nSteps\n\n1. Read the full passage first. Identify the subject matter, emotional register, sentence rhythm, and level of formality. A metaphor that ignores context is just decoration.\n2. Identify from the context what the metaphor needs to do. Is it clarifying an abstraction, adding emotional weight, compressing a complex idea, creating a visual, or shifting pace? This determines the direction of your suggestions.\n3. Generate up to ten metaphors. You may provide fewer if the possibilities thin out. Do not pad the list. Order them from most grounded and natural to most unexpected.\n4. Start with three to five clean, intuitive options. These should feel almost invisible in the text — a reader would absorb them without stopping. They draw from concrete, familiar source domains that relate naturally to the subject. Avoid cliché, but do not avoid simplicity.\n5. Follow with two to four bolder options. These can pull from unexpected source domains, compress more aggressively, create stranger visuals, or work against the surface tone for contrast. They should surprise without requiring explanation. If a metaphor needs a footnote, it has failed.\n6. If the passage has a controlling metaphor or image pattern already in play, at least half your suggestions should extend or harmonize with it rather than introduce competing imagery.\n7. Match scope to the target. If the focal point is a short phrase, offer short phrases. If it is a full sentence, offer full sentences. Do not turn a three-word request into a paragraph.\n8. Avoid the following: dead metaphors the writer has certainly seen a thousand times, mixed metaphors that collapse under a second of thought, metaphors that prioritize cleverness over clarity, and anything that sounds like it belongs in a motivational poster or a TED talk.\n\nOutput format: Markdown. Each metaphor on its own line starting with \"- \", with no commentary, labels, or justification. If a metaphor requires a small grammatical adjustment to the surrounding sentence, note it in brackets after the suggestion. Otherwise, keep each line to the metaphor itself and nothing else.","shortDescription":"Context-aware metaphors for a specific passage","hasFocusText":true,"icon":null,"category":{"id":1,"name":"Words & sentences","subheader":"Granular suggestions","position":1}},{"id":4,"name":"Creative alternatives","prompt":"You are helping a writer find fresh, inventive ways to express a specific word, phrase, or passage within a larger text. Unlike a standard synonym swap, your job is to push past the first and second ideas that come to mind and reach for alternatives that surprise — without tipping into preciousness or forced cleverness. The goal is a concise list of substitutions the writer can scan quickly and either use directly or riff on.\n\nInput: Two clearly marked pieces of text. TEXT: the full paragraph or passage surrounding the segment in question. PART TO FOCUS ON: the specific word, phrase, or sentence the writer wants alternatives for.\n\nSteps\n\n1. Read the context closely. Identify the tone, register, rhythm, and intent of the surrounding text. Every alternative must drop into the existing sentence without breaking voice or flow. This constraint is non-negotiable even when pushing for creativity.\n2. Discard your first instincts. The obvious synonyms, the phrases you have seen a thousand times, the comfortable literary defaults — set them aside. If an option would appear in a thesaurus entry or in the first draft of a competent but uninspired writer, it is not what we want here. The exception is when the obvious word happens to be genuinely the best word; in that case, include it once, early in the list, and move on.\n3. Generate up to ten alternatives. You may provide fewer if the possibilities are genuinely limited. Do not pad the list. Order them from the most controlled and precise to the most unexpected and daring.\n4. Aim for specificity over decoration. The best creative alternatives tend to be more concrete, more sensory, or more structurally surprising than the original — not more ornate. A plainspoken word used in a slightly unexpected way beats an elaborate metaphor that calls attention to itself. Avoid anything that sounds like it is trying to impress a writing workshop.\n5. Steer hard away from clichés and dead metaphors. If a phrase has appeared in enough published writing to feel familiar, reject it. This includes literary clichés, not just conversational ones. \"Deafening silence,\" \"weight of the world,\" \"shattered into a thousand pieces\" — these are all off limits, along with anything that pattern-matches to them.\n6. Include two or three options that take real risks. These might reframe the idea entirely, compress it sharply, shift the rhythm of the sentence, use an unexpected register, or borrow an image from a domain the reader would not anticipate. They should feel like the suggestion of a bold co-writer, not a thesaurus. If nothing genuinely surprising comes to mind, keep the list short rather than faking it.\n7. Respect the original scope. If the target is a single word, offer single words or short phrases. If it is a full sentence, offer full sentences. Do not inflate a word-level request into paragraph-level rewrites.\n\nOutput format: Each alternative on its own line starting with \"- \", with no commentary or justification. Do not explain why an option is interesting or what makes it creative — the writer will see it or they won't. If a substitution requires a minor adjustment to the surrounding grammar, show the adjusted fragment in brackets after it — e.g., \"relentless [requires dropping 'very' before it]\". Otherwise, keep every line to the replacement text and nothing else.","shortDescription":"Inventive rewrites pushing the limits","hasFocusText":true,"icon":null,"category":{"id":1,"name":"Words & sentences","subheader":"Granular suggestions","position":1}},{"id":1233842216,"name":"Strong dialogue","prompt":"Analyze the provided text to evaluate the effectiveness, authenticity, and dramatic tension of the dialogue. Focus your analysis on the following elements based on established principles of strong dramatic writing:\n\n- Subtext and directness — Identify instances where characters state their feelings, intentions, or exposition too plainly (\"on-the-nose\" dialogue). People rarely say exactly what they mean; they deflect, imply, or talk around the subject. Flag lines that lack subtext, sound overly literal, or serve primarily to deliver background information to the reader.\n\n- Character voice distinction — Evaluate whether the characters sound distinct from one another based on their vocabulary, syntax, rhythm, and attitude. If the dialogue tags were removed, would it still be clear who is speaking? Flag sections where characters sound interchangeable, overly formal, or where they sound indistinguishable from the author's narrative voice.\n\n- Conflict and underlying objective — Analyze the conversation for dramatic purpose. Every character in a scene should want something, and dialogue is the tactic used to achieve it. Flag conversations that stall the pacing, consist of idle pleasantries, or where characters simply agree with each other without advancing the narrative, revealing character, or shifting the power dynamic.\n\n- Rhythm and naturalism — Look for unnatural phrasing or speeches that drag the scene down. Flag dialogue that lacks the authentic rhythm of human interaction, which often includes interruptions, sentence fragments, changes in subject, and people speaking past one another rather than waiting patiently for their turn.\n\n- Action and grounding — Check if the conversation feels like \"talking heads\" floating in a void. Flag long stretches of uninterrupted dialogue that lack accompanying body language, interaction with the environment, or internal monologue to ground the scene and provide context to the spoken words.\n\n- Weak dialogue attributions and adverbs — Identify instances where dialogue tags tell the reader how a line is spoken instead of letting the words themselves or accompanying physical action carry the emotion. Flag adverbs (like angrily or coldly) and overly descriptive verbs (like hissed or barked) that are used to compensate for weak dialogue rather than letting the reader infer the tone from the scene.\n\nFor each issue identified, provide a brief explanation of why the dialogue feels unnatural or lacks tension. Then, offer a rewritten alternative(s) that introduces stronger subtext, sharpens the specific character's voice, heightens the conflict, or better integrates the conversation with the surrounding action. Ensure the revisions serve the original scene's broader narrative goal.","shortDescription":"Refine character conversations","hasFocusText":false,"icon":null,"category":{"id":2,"name":"Editing","subheader":"Full-doc checks","position":2}},{"id":1995867120,"name":"Pacing","prompt":"Analyze the following text for its pacing, sentence structure, and rhythmic flow. Focus on identifying areas where the narrative speed feels unintentional or where repetitive structures create a monotonous reading experience. Focus on these categories:\n\n- Sentence length monotony — consecutive sentences of similar length, particularly a long string of medium-length sentences. Flag areas where a lack of variation in word count dampens the dynamic energy of the prose.\n\n- Structural repetition — recurring syntactical patterns, such as starting multiple consecutive sentences with the same pronoun and verb, or overusing the same grammatical constructions like trailing participial phrases.\n\n- Pacing mismatches — instances where the sentence structure contradicts the narrative tension. Flag action scenes bogged down by complex, multi-clause sentences, or slow, introspective moments rushed by abrupt, staccato phrasing.\n\n- Overused transitions and breathers — sentences weighed down by unnecessary conjunctions, adverbial transitions, or filler words that interrupt the natural flow and drag the pacing.\n\n- Missing rhythmic emphasis — moments of high impact or revelation buried within the middle of a long paragraph or a convoluted sentence, rather than isolated structurally for punch and dramatic effect.\n\nDo not flag deliberate repetition used for thematic resonance, intentional staccato rhythms meant to convey panic or exhaustion, or sprawling sentences explicitly crafted to reflect a character's spiraling thoughts. If a passage is borderline, flag it but note that it may be a conscious craft choice.\n\nFor each issue found, provide a brief explanation of why the current structure hinders the pacing or rhythm, and offer a rewritten alternative(s). Match the voice, tense, and point of view of the original.","shortDescription":"Map rhythm and flow","hasFocusText":false,"icon":null,"category":{"id":2,"name":"Editing","subheader":"Full-doc checks","position":2}},{"id":1891288162,"name":"Point of view","prompt":"Analyze the following text for consistency and control of point of view. Before flagging anything, infer the governing perspective and narrative distance from the text itself — first person, limited third, or omniscient; close or detached — and judge every apparent slip against that established vantage. A story is not only what happens but whose perception we experience it through, and an uncontrolled viewpoint quietly breaks the reader's immersion. Focus on these categories:\n\n1. Head-hopping — flag mid-scene slips from the viewpoint character's mind into another character's thoughts, feelings, or private sensations without a deliberate, structured break. In a limited perspective, we can see what other characters do and say, but not what they secretly feel.\n\n2. Impossible knowledge — flag narration that reveals facts, interior states, or sensory details the viewpoint character could not plausibly perceive or know (what is happening in another room, how they look from the outside, another person's unspoken intent).\n\n3. Author intrusion — flag moments where the narrative voice steps outside the established perspective to editorialize, foreshadow, or pronounce in a \"voice of God\" the chosen point of view does not support (\"Little did she know that everything was about to change\").\n\n4. Perception filters in close POV — in a close first or limited-third narration, flag redundant filter phrases that insert a layer between the reader and the character's direct experience: \"she saw the door swing open,\" \"he heard footsteps approach,\" \"she felt a chill run through her.\" Often the sentence is more immediate without the filter (\"the door swung open\"). Recognize where the filter is doing real work and leave it.\n\n5. Wandering narrative distance — flag uncontrolled zooming between deep interiority and detached, wide-angle narration within a single passage, where the shift feels accidental rather than chosen.\n\nDo not flag deliberate, well-handled omniscient narration, intentional and clearly marked POV shifts at scene or chapter breaks, or an established multiple-viewpoint structure. The problem is the uncontrolled slip, not the deliberate choice. If a passage is borderline, flag it but note it may be a conscious craft choice.\n\nFor each issue found, quote the specific passage, identify whose head the narration slipped into or what the viewpoint character couldn't know, and offer a revision that stays within the established perspective. Match the voice, tense, and point of view of the original.","shortDescription":"Head-hopping and POV slips","hasFocusText":false,"icon":null,"category":{"id":2,"name":"Editing","subheader":"Full-doc checks","position":2}},{"id":1980376063,"name":"Sensory immersion","prompt":"Analyze the following text for missed opportunities to engage the full range of human senses. Writers often default heavily to sight and action, neglecting smell, touch, taste, and sound. Your goal is to find places where the scene feels thin or generic and inject concrete, sensory detail to ground the reader in the moment. Focus on these areas:\n\n- Visual fatigue — passages where the description relies entirely on what things look like, especially if those visual details are generic (\"the room was dark,\" \"the city was busy\").\n\n- The missing senses — identify key moments, environments, or interactions where smell, touch, or taste would naturally occur but are absent. Look for proximity: a character entering a new space, getting close to another person, eating, touching an object, or reacting to a shift in weather or atmosphere.\n\n- Abstract atmosphere — instances where the mood or setting is summarized abstractly rather than built through specific sensory inputs (\"it felt cold and hostile,\" \"the air was heavy\").\n\n- \"Floating head\" syndrome — dialogue scenes where characters converse in a sensory vacuum, disconnected from their environment or physical sensations.\n\nFor each flagged instance, briefly explain the missed sensory opportunity. Then, provide 2-3 suggestions that incorporate a wider range of senses (smell, touch, taste, kinesthetic/movement, internal sensation) to deepen the scene's impact. Match the tone, pacing, and point of view of the original text.","shortDescription":"Sensory blind spots","hasFocusText":false,"icon":null,"category":{"id":2,"name":"Editing","subheader":"Full-doc checks","position":2}},{"id":1112097076,"name":"Muscular verbs","prompt":"Analyze the following text for sentences whose energy leaks out through weak, passive, or over-modified verbs. The verb is the engine of the sentence; when it stalls, the prose goes static no matter how vivid the surrounding words. Focus on these categories:\n\n1. Passive voice that drains momentum — flag passive constructions where the active version is stronger and clearer (\"the door was opened by her\" → \"she opened the door\"). Identify cases where the passive also hides the agent of the action, whether by accident or evasion (\"mistakes were made\"). Note the legitimate exceptions: when the agent is genuinely unknown or irrelevant, or when the object truly deserves the emphasis.\n\n2. Smothered verbs (nominalizations) — flag verbs that have been buried inside noun phrases, forcing a limp helper verb to do the work: \"make a decision\" (decide), \"give rise to\" (cause), \"reach a conclusion\" (conclude), \"conduct an investigation\" (investigate), \"is in agreement with\" (agrees). Show how recovering the buried verb makes the sentence move.\n\n3. Adverb crutches — flag an adverb propping up a verb that should carry the meaning alone. When a single stronger verb makes the modifier obsolete, name it: \"walked slowly and painfully\" → \"trudged\" or \"limped\"; \"closed the door quietly\" → \"eased the door shut\"; \"looked angrily\" → \"glared.\"\n\n4. Generic all-purpose verbs — flag the low-resolution verbs that stand in for something more exact: \"was,\" \"went,\" \"got,\" \"put,\" \"made,\" \"did,\" \"had.\" These are not wrong in themselves, but when a precise verb would sharpen the image without changing the register, note it.\n\n5. Hedging and filter verbs that sap force — flag tentative constructions that hold the action at arm's length: \"began to,\" \"started to,\" \"seemed to,\" \"tried to,\" \"proceeded to,\" \"sort of.\" Often the sentence is stronger when the character simply does the thing (\"she began to cry\" → \"she cried\").\n\nDo not flag the linking verb \"to be\" where a plain state is genuinely what is meant, passive voice used deliberately and well, or intentionally flat, plain diction where a \"weaker\" verb is the right tonal choice. Muscular does not mean ornate. If a passage is borderline, flag it but note it may be a conscious craft choice.\n\nFor each issue found, quote the specific passage, name which verb weakness it is and why it drains the sentence, and offer a revised version built on a stronger verb. Match the voice, tense, and point of view of the original.","shortDescription":"Dead verbs and adverb crutches","hasFocusText":false,"icon":null,"category":{"id":2,"name":"Editing","subheader":"Full-doc checks","position":2}},{"id":1909310018,"name":"Transitions","prompt":"Analyze the following text specifically focusing on how the narrative moves between paragraphs, scenes, ideas, or blocks of time. Identify both the weak links and the missing ones. Focus your analysis on the following categories:\n\n- Unnecessary \"stage direction\" transitions — Flag detailed, mechanical descriptions of characters moving from point A to point B or performing mundane actions just to get them to the next scene (\"He stood up, walked to the door, opened it, walked down the hall, and entered the kitchen.\").\n\n- The \"throat-clearing\" transition — Identify filler phrases, unnecessary summaries of the previous paragraph, or warm-up sentences that delay the actual point or action of the new section (\"Having finished his meal, he thought about what to do next.\").\n\n- Over-reliance on transitional adverbs — Flag repetitive use of words like \"Suddenly,\" \"Then,\" \"Next,\" \"Meanwhile,\" or \"Later\" to force a connection where a stronger structural link or a simple hard break is needed. Recognize justified use of the same words.\n\n- The abrupt jump (whiplash) — Identify moments where the narrative shifts location, time, or point of view so suddenly that it causes confusion or requires the reader to re-read to orient themselves. Look for missing connective tissue. But consider if it's a stylistic choice which benefits the pace.\n\n- Missing logical or thematic bridges — Flag paragraph breaks where the core idea shifts without a clear cause-and-effect relationship or thematic resonance tying the two thoughts together.\n\nDo not flag deliberate hard cuts or juxtaposition used intentionally for pacing, surprise, or stylistic effect.\n\nFor each issue found, provide a brief explanation of why the current transition fails (or why its absence is jarring). For unnecessary transitions, suggest the exact cut or a significantly compressed rewrite. For abrupt jumps or missing bridges, suggest a specific, concise sentence or phrase that orientates the reader smoothly, matching the voice, tone, and pacing of the original text.","shortDescription":"Weak and abrupt transitions","hasFocusText":false,"icon":null,"category":{"id":2,"name":"Editing","subheader":"Full-doc checks","position":2}},{"id":1063393332,"name":"Trust the reader","prompt":"Analyze the following text for moments where the writing over-explains — handing the reader information, interpretation, or backstory that the scene could imply or that the reader can supply unaided. The most powerful writing shows only a fraction and lets the reader feel the rest; when everything is stated outright, the prose loses its submerged weight. This is distinct from \"show, don't tell\": here the concern is not named emotions but scene-level exposition and interpretation. Focus on these categories:\n\n1. Info-dumps and expository lumps — flag undigested masses of world-building, historical background, or technical explanation that halt the narrative to bring the reader up to speed. Note where the same facts could be broken up, woven into action or dialogue, or simply cut because the reader does not need them yet.\n\n2. Backstory intrusions — flag moments where the narrative pauses to explain a character's past, motivation, or inner trauma directly, instead of letting it surface through behavior in the present scene. Mark where the story stops moving so the writer can fill the reader in.\n\n3. Spelled-out meaning — flag lines that interpret the significance, moral, or emotional point of a scene the reader has already grasped from the action (\"It was in that moment she realized how much she had lost\"). Point to the redundant interpretation and note that the scene already earns it.\n\n4. Over-rendered horror or mystery — flag places where naming or fully detailing a threat, revelation, or darkness weakens it, and where a suggestive outline would let the reader's imagination supply something worse. Restraint sharpens; total disclosure deflates.\n\n5. Restating the known — flag narration that repeats information already established, or that spells out a conclusion the reader would reach on their own. Trust that a detail delivered once has landed.\n\nDo not flag genuinely necessary orientation the reader cannot do without, deliberate dramatic irony where the narrator knowingly reveals more than the characters, or comedic over-explanation used for effect. The test is whether omission would intrigue or merely confuse — if cutting it would leave the reader lost rather than leaning in, leave it. If a passage is borderline, flag it but note it may be a conscious craft choice.\n\nFor each issue found, quote the specific passage, explain what the reader could be trusted to infer or what the writer should leave submerged, and offer a leaner revision — usually a cut, a compression, or a version that implies rather than states. Match the voice, tense, and point of view of the original.","shortDescription":"Over-explanation and info-dumps","hasFocusText":false,"icon":null,"category":{"id":2,"name":"Editing","subheader":"Full-doc checks","position":2}},{"id":1997969117,"name":"Ernest Hemingway","prompt":"Analyze the following prose the way Ernest Hemingway would critique a student's work in a creative writing workshop. Don't impersonate Hemingway. Instead, apply his actual craft principles listed below as a rigorous analytical framework.\n\n1. The Iceberg Theory (The Theory of Omission). A writer should only show the top one-eighth of the story; the remaining seven-eighths must remain underwater, felt but unseen. Hemingway explains: \"If a writer of prose knows enough of what he is writing about he may omit things that he knows and the reader, if the writer is writing truly enough, will have a feeling of those things as strongly as though the writer had stated them.\" Flag over-explanation. If you are explaining a character's backstory or inner trauma directly to the reader, you are bringing the iceberg out of the water and losing its massive, submerged weight.\n\n2. The Star Copy Style (Vigorous English). Before he was a novelist, Hemingway was a reporter for the Kansas City Star, and he credited their style sheet as his foundational education. The rules were absolute: \"Use short sentences. Use short first paragraphs. Use vigorous English. Be positive, not negative.\" Flag passive voice, clunky multi-clause sentences, and hesitant phrasing (\"It seemed like,\" \"She sort of\"). Replace them with active, muscular verbs and direct statements.\n\n3. Architecture, Not Interior Decoration. Prose must be structurally sound and free of ornamental fluff. \"Prose is architecture, not interior decoration, and the Baroque is over.\" Flag adjectives and adverbs. Scour your draft for words that describe how a thing happened (e.g., \"he ran quickly,\" \"she smiled beautifully\") and replace them with stronger nouns and verbs that render the modifier obsolete.\n\n4. The Sequence of Motion and Fact (Objective Correlative). To convey an emotion, do not name the emotion. Instead, describe the exact physical action or sensory detail that produced the emotion. Hemingway wrote about the struggle to capture \"the real thing, the sequence of motion and fact which made the emotion.\" Flag words like \"sad,\" \"terrified,\" \"joyful\". Let the precise physical facts generate the emotion in the reader.\n\n5. The Shock-Proof Crap Detector. A writer's most essential tool is ruthless self-honesty. Hemingway stated, \"The most essential gift for a good writer is a built-in, shock-proof crap detector. This is the writer’s radar and all great writers have had it.\" Flag moments of posturing, fake intellect, forced sentimentality, or writing that is trying too hard to sound \"literary.\" If it rings false to you, it will ring false to the reader. Cut it.\n\n6. Distrust Abstractions. Grand, conceptual words lose their meaning in the face of brutal reality. Flag lofty philosophical terms. Ground the narrative in the physical, the tangible, and the specific.\n\nFor each issue found, quote the specific passage, explain the problem through the lens of the relevant Hemingway principle, and offer a revised version. Be direct. No encouragement for its own sake — but give full credit where something works.","shortDescription":"Prose critique applying Hemingway's principles","hasFocusText":false,"icon":null,"category":{"id":6,"name":"Famous writers","subheader":"Feedback from the best","position":5}},{"id":1100890948,"name":"Henry James","prompt":"Analyze the following prose the way Henry James would critique a student's work in a creative writing workshop. Don't impersonate Henry James. Instead, apply his actual craft principles listed below as a rigorous analytical framework.\n\n1. The Central Consciousness (The \"Reflector\"). Avoid omniscient \"head-hopping.\" James pioneered filtering the narrative strictly through the mind of a single, highly sensitive observer. Flag moments where you reveal information your viewpoint character couldn't possibly know. In Jamesian theory, the story is not simply \"what happens,\" but how what happens is perceived by a specific, unfolding intelligence.\n\n2. The Inseparability of Character and Plot. Never treat plot as a mechanical framework separate from the people inside it. Every event must organically emerge from the psychological makeup of the characters.\n\n3. The \"House of Fiction\" (Perspective is Everything). Acknowledge that there is no single objective reality in a novel. James wrote that the \"House of Fiction\" has a million windows, and your narrator is standing at just one, watching the human scene with a specific set of binoculars. Flag moments where your narrative voice tries to be the ultimate \"Voice of God.\" Embrace the limitations, biases, and unique distortions of your chosen window.\n\n4. Morality is Execution. Do not write to preach a moral lesson. James argued that there is no such thing as a moral or immoral novel—only a well-written or badly-written one. Flag any heavy-handed \"good vs. evil\" moralizing. The deepest morality in fiction lies in exploring the complex, often ambiguous depths of human motives with an unflinching, honest eye.\n\n5. The Art of Foreshortening. Not every moment deserves a scene. James stressed the necessity of \"foreshortening\"—artful summary that compresses time and exposition to bridge the gap between major dramatic moments. Flag scenes that consist of mere traveling, waiting, or rote daily routines. Condense the mundane so the crucial psychological confrontations have the space to expand.\n\n6. Make the Reader Do the Heavy Lifting (Suggestion over Statement). When dealing with horror, evil, or profound realizations, do not spell it out entirely. James advised leaving the exact nature of darkness vague. Flag moments where you over-explain the horror. Provide the suggestive outline, and the reader's own imagination will supply terrors far worse than anything you could explicitly describe.\n\nFor each issue found, quote the specific passage, explain the problem through the lens of the relevant Henry James principle, and offer a revised version. Be direct. No encouragement for its own sake — but give full credit where something works.","shortDescription":"Prose critique applying James's principles","hasFocusText":false,"icon":null,"category":{"id":6,"name":"Famous writers","subheader":"Feedback from the best","position":5}},{"id":1002436711,"name":"Ursula K. Le Guin","prompt":"Analyze the following prose the way Ursula K. Le Guin would critique a student's work in a creative writing workshop. Don't impersonate Ursula K. Le Guin. Instead, apply her actual craft principles listed below as a rigorous analytical framework.\n\n1. Beware the \"Expository Lump.\" Do not halt the narrative to dump world-building, historical backstory, or technical specifications onto the reader. Le Guin coined the term \"expository lump\" to describe these undigested masses of information that kill narrative momentum. If you must convey facts, break them up, weave them into dialogue, or better yet, make them part of the character's immediate, moving action. Information must be earned, not dropped.\n\n2. The Rigor of Point of View. Do not \"head-hop.\" Le Guin was uncompromising about mastering the mechanics of perspective—whether it is First Person, Limited Third, or Omniscient. Flag any paragraph where the perspective accidentally slips from one character’s mind into another's without a deliberate, structured transition. Commit entirely to the limitations of your chosen perspective. If you choose Omniscient, master the difficult, god-like voice without sliding into lazy authorial intrusion.\n\n3. The Art of Leaping (Summarize vs. Dramatize). Not every moment needs to be a fully rendered scene. Le Guin stressed the vital rhythm between narrative summary (telling) and immediate action (showing). Flag drafts that are one relentless string of moment-to-moment dialogue and action. \"Showing\" everything is exhausting for the reader. Learn to summarize gracefully to cover distances and time, saving the high-definition dramatic scenes for the moments that truly pivot the story.\n\n4. The Power of Intentional Repetition. Discard the amateur fear of repeating a word and identify missed oppotunities for deliberate repetition. While clumsy, accidental repetition should be cut, Le Guin championed deliberate repetition as a powerful rhetorical device. If a word or phrase carries emotional or thematic weight, strike it like a bell multiple times. It builds cadence, rhythm, and incantatory power.\n\n5. Nouns and Verbs Over Adjectives and Adverbs. Let the action drive the sentence. Scour the text for adverbs and adjectives doing the heavy lifting that a strong verb or precise noun should be doing. Do not write that a character \"walked slowly and painfully in the heavy rain\"; find a verb that embodies that action (trudged, limped, slogged). Overuse of modifiers weakens the prose; strong verbs make it muscular.\n\nFor each issue found, quote the specific passage, explain the problem through the lens of the relevant Ursula K. Le Guin principle, and offer a revised version. Be direct. No encouragement for its own sake — but give full credit where something works.","shortDescription":"Prose critique applying Le Guin's principles","hasFocusText":false,"icon":null,"category":{"id":6,"name":"Famous writers","subheader":"Feedback from the best","position":5}},{"id":1113315921,"name":"Virginia Woolf","prompt":"Analyze the following prose the way Virginia Woolf would critique a student's work in a creative writing workshop. Don't impersonate Virginia Woolf. Instead, apply her actual craft principles listed below as a rigorous analytical framework.\n\n1. Kill the \"Angel in the House\" (Eradicate Self-Censorship). Flag any moment where the narrative voice tries to be overly agreeable, sympathetic, polite, or constrained by social expectations. Woolf warned that the phantom of the \"Angel\"—the internalized voice demanding the writer be pure, pleasing, and non-confrontational—will drain the truth from your work. The writer must \"turn upon her and catch her by the throat.\"\n\n2. Life is a Luminous Halo (Reject Materialism). Flag descriptions that focus purely on external circumstances—what a character wears, the exact layout of their house, or the buttons on their coat. Woolf criticized writers like Arnold Bennett and H.G. Wells for building elaborate houses but leaving them empty of human life. Instead, capture the inner consciousness. \"Life is not a series of gig lamps symmetrically arranged; life is a luminous halo, a semi-transparent envelope surrounding us from the beginning of consciousness to the end.\"\n\n3. Capture the Atoms as They Fall (Psychology over Plot). Remove the artificial constraints of conventional plot arcs. Do not force characters into neat, symmetrical comedies or tragedies. Instead, record the myriad impressions of an ordinary mind on an ordinary day. Trace the pattern that sights, sounds, and thoughts score upon the consciousness, no matter how disconnected or trivial they may initially seem.\n\n4. Tunneling (The Subterranean Cave). Give your characters a deep psychological past that bleeds into their present. Woolf described her method as \"digging out beautiful caves\" behind her characters. Connect them not just by what they say aloud in a drawing room, but by the subterranean tunnels of their memories, hidden traumas, and private anxieties. The present moment must be anchored to the weight of the past.\n\n5. Incandescence Over Grievance. Flag moments where the writer steps into the text to preach, argue, or settle personal scores. Woolf noted that Charlotte Brontë's brilliance was sometimes marred by her anger at her restrictive circumstances. The work of art must be consumed entirely by its own fire. If the writer's personal bitterness remains unconsumed, the story becomes opaque and the reader’s immersion is broken.\n\n6. Catch \"Mrs. Brown\" (Character Essence). When introducing a character, do not rely on sociological data or economic status. Imagine sitting across from a stranger on a train. You cannot capture her true nature by describing the train carriage or the fabric of her dress. You must leap directly into her spirit, her quirks, and her immediate, overwhelming presence. Focus on the soul, not the upholstery.\n\n7. The Elasticity of Time. Discard the obligation to represent time strictly as a clock ticks. Expand a single, seemingly mundane moment (like staring at a mark on a wall or threading a needle) into pages of rich internal exploration. Conversely, allow years of external plot—wars, deaths, marriages—to pass in a single detached sentence or bracket. Time in fiction must be measured by psychological weight, not minutes.\n\n8. The Underlying Wave (Rhythm over Grammar). Before finding the words, find the rhythm. Woolf believed that a sight or emotion creates a \"wave in the mind\" long before the words fit it. Read the prose aloud. Flag sentences that are grammatically correct but rhythmically dead. The syntax must rise, crash, and recede with the exact emotional tempo of the scene.\n\n9. The Courage of the Ordinary. Flag the urge to rely on murder, war, or catastrophe to generate narrative interest. Give an ordinary Tuesday the emotional weight of an epic battle. A woman buying flowers for a party or a family taking a delayed boat ride contains as much triumph, tragedy, and philosophical depth as any historical epic, provided the writer looks closely enough.\n\n10. The \"Match in the Dark\" (Brief Clarities). Do not attempt to illuminate everything at once. Human connection and understanding are not permanent states. They occur in sudden, brief flashes. Structure scenes so that characters misunderstand each other for pages, only to experience a sudden, fleeting moment of profound unity—a match struck unexpectedly in the dark.\n\n11. Eliminate the Pedantic Narrator (Free Indirect Discourse). Erase the boundary between the narrator and the character. Flag phrases like \"she thought,\" \"he felt,\" or \"she remembered.\" Instead, let the third-person narrative voice slip seamlessly into the vocabulary, cadence, and immediate sensory experience of the character, adopting their biases and blind spots without using quotation marks.\n\nFor each issue found, quote the specific passage, explain the problem through the lens of the relevant Virginia Woolf principle, and offer a revised version. Be direct. No encouragement for its own sake — but give full credit where something works.","shortDescription":"Prose critique applying Woolf's principles","hasFocusText":false,"icon":null,"category":{"id":6,"name":"Famous writers","subheader":"Feedback from the best","position":5}},{"id":1819211654,"name":"Kurt Vonnegut","prompt":"Analyze the following prose the way Kurt Vonnegut would critique a student's work in a creative writing workshop. Don't impersonate Vonnegut. Instead, apply his actual craft principles listed below as a rigorous analytical framework.\n\n1. The Stranger's Time (The First Mandate). Use the time of a total stranger in such a way that he or she will not feel the time was wasted. Vonnegut believed writing was an act of hospitality; the reader is a guest in your mind. Flag any self-indulgent tangent or meandering preamble. If it doesn't serve the reader's experience, cut it.\n\n2. The Anchor of Empathy. Give the reader at least one character he or she can root for. Unlike writers who revel in completely unlikable anti-heroes, Vonnegut insisted on preserving a thread of human connection. Even in his most cynical, apocalyptic settings, there must be someone whose survival or happiness the reader genuinely desires.\n\n3. \"The Glass of Water\" (The Necessity of Desire). Every character should want something, even if it is only a glass of water. A character without agency or desire is dead weight. Scour your scenes: if a character is simply standing around waiting for the plot to happen to them, inject a motivation, no matter how petty or mundane.\n\n4. The Sentence Binary. Every sentence must do one of two things—reveal character or advance the action. This was Vonnegut’s razor for editing. Read your draft sentence by sentence. If a line simply paints a pretty picture without deepening the reader’s understanding of who these people are or pushing the plot forward, it is deadwood.\n\n5. Start Near the End. Start as close to the end as possible. Vonnegut despised the \"throat-clearing\" phase of fiction where authors spend chapters establishing backstory. Jump directly into the inciting incident or the climax of the conflict. Trust the reader to pick up the context clues along the way.\n\n6. The Sadist’s Obligation. Be a sadist. No matter how sweet and innocent your leading characters, make awful things happen to them—in order that the reader may see what they are made of. Do not protect your darlings. If you love a character, the best way to prove their worth to the reader is to put them through hell.\n\n7. The Audience of One. Write to please just one person. As Vonnegut warned: \"If you open a window and make love to the world, so to speak, your story will get pneumonia.\" Flag any moment where you are trying to impress a broad demographic, a critic, or a political faction.\n\n8. To Hell with Suspense (Democratize Information). Give your readers as much information as possible as soon as possible. Withholding basic facts to create a cheap sense of mystery is a parlor trick. As Vonnegut put it: \"Readers should have such complete understanding of what is going on, where and why, that they could finish the story themselves, should cockroaches eat the last few pages.\"\n\n9. Embrace Your Native Voice. Do not try to sound like an English aristocrat if you are a kid from the Midwest. Vonnegut fully embraced the conversational, unpretentious speech of Indianapolis. Flag language that feels borrowed or \"dressed up\" for the occasion. Trust the way you naturally speak; it is your most unique asset.\n\n10. The Power of Simplicity. Keep it simple. Vonnegut pointed out that two of the greatest masters of the English language, William Shakespeare and James Joyce, wrote sentences that were almost childlike in their construction. He loved reminding writers that Hamlet’s most agonizing existential query—\"To be or not to be\"—consists entirely of one-syllable words.\n\n11. The Guts to Cut. Have the guts to cut. Even if a sentence is the most beautifully crafted string of words you have ever written, if it does not illuminate your subject in some new and useful way, scratch it out. Vonnegut called this the ultimate test of a writer's maturity: the ability to murder your own brilliance for the good of the piece.\n\n12. Pity the Readers. Remember that reading is mentally exhausting. The reader is tasked with looking at thousands of little black marks on paper and hallucinating a reality out of them. Do not make their job harder with impenetrable prose, massive blocks of text, or needlessly convoluted grammar. Use white space. Give their eyes a rest.\n\nFor each issue found, quote the specific passage, explain the problem through the lens of the relevant Vonnegut principle, and offer a revised version. Be direct. No encouragement for its own sake — but give full credit where something works.","shortDescription":"Prose critique applying Vonnegut's principles","hasFocusText":false,"icon":null,"category":{"id":6,"name":"Famous writers","subheader":"Feedback from the best","position":5}}]