line-edit
Skill0 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Polish a draft the author already wrote — fix grammar, punctuation, awkward phrasing, wordiness, and clarity at the sentence level WITHOUT changing meaning or flattening voice. A light-touch line editor, not a rewriter. Defaults to a professional register (business email). Use when the user says "polish this," "clean up this email," "line-edit," "proofread," "tighten this," "fix the grammar," "make this read better/more professional," or hands over a draft email/message/doc and wants it sharper. Do NOT use for tone, positioning, cockiness, or AI-tells work — that is full-review / cringe-check / ai-written-check.
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- mcoville/Novel-Editing-Automationtheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- callmeradical/skillstheir own version, first seen Jun 11, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 2
- mcoville/Novel-Editing-Automation★ 1same name
- callmeradical/skills★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository7 other files it gives its agents.
- ai-written-checkSkill
- copyright-creative-workSkill
- cringe-checkSkill
- full-reviewSkill
- journey-mapSkill
- using-neon-jetpackSkill
- ux-web-design-reviewSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈5
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 21
Preserve the author's voice: Keep their phrasing, rhythm, and word choices wherever they hold up.
- Distinctive: line 22
Lightest fix wins: When a sentence could be repaired several ways, choose the smallest change that fixes the problem, not the fanciest …
- Distinctive: line 27
Read the draft once for meaning and register.
- Distinctive: line 46
Only the changes that involved *judgment*: a reworded sentence, a cut, a word swap that changes nuance.
- Distinctive: line 51
If you had to guess at unclear meaning, put those at the top as Check these: questions, not silent edits.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Line Edit
Polish a draft the author already wrote so it reads clean and professional, without taking the voice out of it. This is sentence-level line editing: grammar, punctuation, clarity, flow, word choice, length. It is not a rewrite, not a ghostwriter, and not a tone/strategy review.
The author wrote these words on purpose. Your job is to make their writing the best version of itself, not to replace it with yours.
Default register: professional, for business email
Unless the draft is obviously casual, assume the destination is a business email or professional message and edit toward that register: clear, warm, direct, no slang, no throat-clearing. Keep it human — professional does not mean stiff or corporate. If the draft is clearly casual (a text, a Slack message, a personal note), match that instead. When genuinely unsure, ask one quick question: "who's this going to?"
The core principle (this is the whole point)
This skill exists because mainstream grammar tools over-suggest and sand every sentence into the same smooth, generic paste. Do the opposite:
- Minimal intervention. Change what is wrong or genuinely unclear. Leave lines that already work alone. If a sentence is fine, do not "improve" it.
- Preserve the author's voice. Keep their phrasing, rhythm, and word choices wherever they hold up. A slightly rough, specific sentence beats a smooth, generic one. Never flatten the author into corporate oatmeal.
- Lightest fix wins. When a sentence could be repaired several ways, choose the smallest change that fixes the problem, not the fanciest rewrite.
- One round, not infinite. Polish once, hand it back. Don't keep re-editing your own edits.
How to run it
- Read the draft once for meaning and register. Decide: professional (default) or casual.
- Edit at the sentence level. Fix:
- Grammar, spelling, punctuation, run-ons, fragments, agreement.
- Awkward or tangled phrasing.
- Wordiness: cut filler, redundancy, throat-clearing ("I just wanted to reach out to," "I think that maybe").
- Em dashes: remove them. Replace with a period, a colon, or a restructured sentence. Em dashes are one of the strongest AI-writing tells, and business writing reads cleaner without them.
- Vagueness and empty filler: cut it or sharpen it. Phrases that add words but no meaning ("it got me thinking," "at the end of the day," "really excited to," "circle back") get cut, or replaced with the specific thing actually meant. If you can't tell what the specific thing is, flag it as a question rather than inventing one.
- Weak/vague verbs and limp constructions where a stronger plain word exists.
- Clarity: if a sentence makes the reader work to parse it, simplify it.
- Do not change the author's meaning, add claims they didn't make, or restructure their argument. If something is unclear because you can't tell what they meant, flag it as a question rather than guessing.
Output format
Two parts, in this order, every time:
1. The clean version — first, ready to copy. The full polished text, so it's a one-step copy-paste. No preamble before it.
2. Judgment calls — a short list under it. Only the changes that involved judgment: a reworded sentence, a cut, a word swap that changes nuance. One line each, with a one-line why. Format:
- "original phrase" → "new phrase" — reason
Pure mechanical fixes (typos, punctuation, obvious grammar) are NOT listed — just fixed silently. The list is only the stuff the author might want to overrule.
If you had to guess at unclear meaning, put those at the top as Check these: questions, not silent edits.
What this skill does NOT do
- Tone, positioning, cockiness, "does this sound arrogant/parroting" → that's
cringe-check. - The deeper AI-tell patterns (triple-list anaphora, "not X but Y," spatial/economic metaphors, manufactured cadence) → that's
ai-written-check. (Exception: em dashes and vague filler ARE in scope here — they're basic cleanliness, not a stylistic judgment.) - Full multi-pass review with before/after diffs and sign-off gates → that's
full-review. - Drafting prose from notes / ghostwriting → out of scope; this polishes existing prose only.
End every run with a one-line pointer when relevant:
For high-stakes hiring or client copy, run full-review too — this pass only covered grammar and clarity.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
Reviews can't be read right now.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

