---

name: draft-polisher description: | Audit-style editing pass for output/DRAFT.md: remove template boilerplate, improve coherence, and enforce citation anchoring. Trigger: polish draft, de-template, coherence pass, remove boilerplate, 润色, 去套话, 去重复, 统一术语. Use when: a first-pass draft exists but reads like scaffolding (repetition/ellipsis/template phrases) or needs a coherence pass before global review/LaTeX. Skip if: the draft already reads human-grade and passes quality gates; or prose is not approved in DECISIONS.md. Network: none. Guardrail: do not add/remove/invent citation keys; do not move citations across subsections; do not change claims beyond what existing citations support.

Draft Polisher (Audit-style editing)

Goal: turn a first-pass draft into readable survey prose without breaking the evidence contract.

This is a local polish pass: de-template + coherence + terminology + redundancy pruning.

Role cards (use explicitly)

Style Harmonizer (editor)

Mission: remove generator voice and make prose read like one author wrote it.

Do:

• Delete narration openers and slide navigation; replace with argument bridges.
• Vary rhythm; remove repeated template stems.
• Collapse repeated disclaimers into one front-matter methodology paragraph.

Avoid:

• Adding or removing citation keys.
• Moving citations across subsections.

Evidence Contract Guard (skeptic)

Mission: prevent polishing from inflating claims beyond evidence.

Do:

• Keep quantitative statements scoped (task/metric/constraint) or weaken them.
• Treat missing evidence as a failure signal; route upstream rather than rewriting around gaps.

Avoid:

• Overconfident language when evidence is abstract-only.

Role prompt: Style Harmonizer (editor expert)

CopyYou are the style and coherence editor for a technical survey.

Your goal is to make the draft read like one careful author wrote it, without changing the evidence contract.

Hard constraints:
- do not add/remove citation keys
- do not move citations across ### subsections
- do not strengthen claims beyond what existing citations support

High-leverage edits:
- delete generator voice (This subsection..., Next we move..., We now turn...)
- replace navigation with argument bridges (content-bearing handoffs)
- collapse repeated disclaimers into one methodology paragraph in front matter
- keep quantitative statements well-scoped (task/metric/constraint in the same sentence)

Working style:
- rewrite sentences so they carry content, not process
- vary rhythm, but avoid “template stems” repeating across H3s

Inputs

• output/DRAFT.md
• Optional context (read-only; helps avoid “polish drift”):
  • outline/outline.yml
  • outline/subsection_briefs.jsonl
  • outline/evidence_drafts.jsonl
  • citations/ref.bib

Outputs

• output/DRAFT.md (in-place refinement)
• output/citation_anchors.prepolish.jsonl (baseline, generated on first run by the script)

Non-negotiables (hard rules)

1. Citation keys are immutable

• Do not add new [@BibKey] keys.
• Do not delete citation markers.
• If citations/ref.bib exists, do not introduce any key that is not defined there.

1. Citation anchoring is immutable

• Do not move citations across ### subsections.
• If you must restructure across subsections, stop and push the change upstream (outline/briefs/evidence), then regenerate.

1. No evidence inflation

• If a sentence sounds stronger than the evidence level (abstract-only), rewrite it into a qualified statement.
• When in doubt, check the subsection’s evidence pack in outline/evidence_drafts.jsonl and keep claims aligned to snippets.

1. Quantitative claim hygiene

• If you keep a number, ensure the sentence also states (without guessing): task type + metric definition + relevant constraint (budget/cost/tool access), and the citation is embedded in that sentence.
• Avoid ambiguous model naming (e.g., “GPT-5”) unless the cited paper uses that exact label; otherwise use the paper’s naming or a neutral description.

1. No pipeline voice

• Remove scaffolding phrases like:
  • “We use the following working claim …”
  • “The main axes we track are …”
  • “abstracts are treated as verification targets …”
  • “Method note (evidence policy): …” (avoid labels; rewrite as plain survey methodology)
  • “this run is …” (rewrite as survey methodology: “This survey is …”)
  • “Scope and definitions / Design space / Evaluation practice …”
  • “Next, we move from …”
  • “We now turn to …”
  • “From to , ...” (title narration; rewrite as an argument bridge)
  • “In the next section/subsection …”
  • “Therefore/As a result, survey synthesis/comparisons should …” (rewrite as literature-facing observation)
• Also remove generator-like thesis openers that read like outline narration:
  • “This subsection surveys …”
  • “This subsection argues …”

Three passes (recommended)

Pass 1 — Subsection polish (structure + de-template)

Role split:

• Editor: rewrite sentences for clarity and flow.
• Skeptic: deletes any generic/template sentence.

Targets:

• Each H3 reads like: tension → contrast → evidence → limitation.
• Remove repeated “disclaimer paragraphs”; keep evidence-policy in one place (prefer a single paragraph in Introduction or Related Work phrased as survey methodology, not as pipeline/execution logs).
• Use outline/outline.yml (if present) to avoid heading drift during edits.
• If present, use outline/subsection_briefs.jsonl to keep each H3’s scope/RQ consistent while improving flow.
• Do a quick “pattern sweep” (semantic, not mechanical):
  • delete outline narration: This subsection ..., In this subsection ...
  • delete slide navigation: Next, we move from ..., We now turn to ..., In the next section ...
  • delete title narration: From <X> to <Y>, ...
  • replace with: content claims + argument bridges + organization sentences (no new facts/citations)
• If citation-injector was used, smooth any budget-injection sentences so they read paper-like:
  • Keep the citation keys unchanged.
  • Avoid list-injection stems (e.g., “A few representative references include …”, “Notable lines of work include …”, “Concrete examples ... include ...”).
  • Prefer integrating the added citations into an existing argument sentence, or rewrite as a short parenthetical e.g., ... clause tied to the subsection’s lens (no new facts).
  • Vary phrasing; avoid repeating the same opener stem across many H3s.
• Tone: keep it calm and academic; remove hype words and repeated opener labels (e.g., literal Key takeaway: across many H3s).
• Reduce repeated synthesis stems (e.g., many paragraphs starting with Taken together, ...); vary synthesis phrasing and keep it content-bearing.
  • Treat repeated "Taken together," as a generator-voice smell. If it appears more than twice (or clusters in one chapter), rewrite to vary phrasing and keep each synthesis sentence content-specific.
  • Vary synthesis openings: "In summary," "Across these studies," "The pattern that emerges," "A key insight," "Collectively," "The evidence suggests," or directly state the conclusion without a synthesis marker.
  • Each synthesis opening should be content-specific, not a template label.

Rewrite recipe for subsection openers (paper voice, no new facts):

• Delete: This subsection surveys/argues... / In this subsection, we...
• Replace with a compact opener that does 2–3 of these (no labels; vary across subsections):
  • Content claim: the subsection-specific tension/trade-off (optionally with 1–2 embedded citations)
  • Why it matters: link the claim to evaluation/engineering constraints (benchmark/protocol/cost/tool access)
  • Preview: what you will contrast next and on what lens (A vs B; then evaluation anchors; then limitations)
• Example skeletons (paraphrase; don’t reuse verbatim):
  • Tension-first: A central tension is ...; ...; we contrast ...
  • Decision-first: For builders, the crux is ...; ...
  • Lens-first: Seen through the lens of ..., ...

Pass 2 — Terminology normalization

Role split:

• Taxonomist: chooses canonical terms and synonym policy.
• Integrator: applies consistent replacements across the draft.

Targets:

• One concept = one name across sections.
• Headings, tables, and prose use the same canonical terms.

Pass 3 — Redundancy pruning (global repetition)

Role split:

• Compressor: collapses repeated boilerplate.
• Narrative keeper: ensures removing repetition does not break the argument chain.

Targets:

• Cross-section repeated intros/outros are removed.
• Only subsection-specific content remains inside subsections.

Script

Quick Start

• python .codex/skills/draft-polisher/scripts/run.py --help
• python .codex/skills/draft-polisher/scripts/run.py --workspace workspaces/<ws>

All Options

• --workspace <dir>: workspace root
• --unit-id <U###>: unit id (optional; for logs)
• --inputs <semicolon-separated>: override inputs (rare; prefer defaults)
• --outputs <semicolon-separated>: override outputs (rare; prefer defaults)
• --checkpoint <C#>: checkpoint id (optional; for logs)

Examples

• First polish pass (creates anchoring baseline output/citation_anchors.prepolish.jsonl):

  • python .codex/skills/draft-polisher/scripts/run.py --workspace workspaces/<ws>

• Reset the anchoring baseline (only if you intentionally accept citation drift):

  • Delete output/citation_anchors.prepolish.jsonl, then rerun the polisher.

Acceptance checklist

• No TODO/TBD/FIXME/(placeholder).
• No … or ... truncation.
• No repeated boilerplate sentence across many subsections.
• Citation anchoring passes (no cross-subsection drift).
• Each H3 has at least one cross-paper synthesis paragraph (>=2 citations).

Troubleshooting

Issue: polishing causes citation drift across subsections

Fix:

• Keep citations inside the same ### subsection; if restructuring is intentional, delete output/citation_anchors.prepolish.jsonl and regenerate a new baseline.

Issue: draft polishing is requested before writing approval

Fix:

• Record the relevant approval in DECISIONS.md (typically Approve C2) before doing prose-level edits.