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)

text

You 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)

•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.

•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.

•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.

•Citation shape normalization

•Merge adjacent citation blocks in the same sentence (avoid [@a] [@b]).
•Deduplicate keys inside one block (avoid [@a; @a]).
•Avoid tail-only citation dumps: keep some citations in the claim sentence itself (mid-sentence), not only paragraph end.

•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.

•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 <X> to <Y>, ...” (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.