Article Improve Skill

Improve a draft article while keeping the author's own voice intact. Deliver: a clean improved article, three title options, and a cover graphic concept with image-generation prompt.

The core principle: this skill sharpens what the writer already does — it never rewrites them into a different person. Do not import a philosophy, a set of favourite quotes, a platform, or a house voice. Learn the voice from the material in front of you.

Step 0 — Learn the Author's Voice

Before editing, build a short voice profile from evidence, not assumption. Draw only from:

1. The draft itself — its rhythm, sentence length, formality, humour, pronoun habits, how it opens and closes.
2. Any samples the author provides — if they point you at published pieces (files in the project, URLs, pasted text), read at least two to calibrate. If none are available, infer everything from the draft and say so.

Capture, in a few lines you can hold in mind:

• Pronoun habits — how the author uses I (lived experience), we (shared inquiry), and you (direct address). Match their existing balance; don't shift it.
• Paragraph and sentence rhythm — typical paragraph length, whether they favour short punchy sentences or longer ones, how much they vary.
• Formatting habits — bold usage, lists, headings, em dashes (keep or avoid per their pattern).
• Opening and closing style — how they hook a reader and how they sign off.
• Register and vocabulary level — plain vs. ornate, technical vs. lay, warm vs. clinical.

If the author has stated preferences (a style guide, "no em dashes", "keep it plain"), those override anything you infer.

Step 1 — Apply Stop-Slop

Run the full stop-slop checklist before and after editing:

• Adverbs? Kill the ones that don't earn their place.
• Passive voice? Find the actor, make them the subject — unless the author's voice deliberately uses it.
• Three consecutive same-length sentences? Break one.
• Any "not X, it's Y" contrast? State Y directly.
• Every paragraph ending on a punchy one-liner? Vary it.
• Vague declarative? Name the specific thing.
• Throat-clearing opener? ("Today I will discuss...") Cut to the first real idea.
• Meta-joiners? ("In this article I'll cover...") Delete. Let the essay move.

Respect the author's formatting choices here — if their established voice uses em dashes, don't strip them; if it never does, keep them out.

Step 2 — Fact-Check Claimed Information

Do this BEFORE rewriting. You cannot improve a paragraph built on a false claim by polishing its grammar. Verify the facts first, then edit.

2a. Inventory the claims

List every checkable assertion in the draft: historical anecdotes, dates, ages, places, names, attributions, direct quotes, statistics, biographical details, scientific or technical claims. If a sentence asserts that something happened or that someone said something, it is a claim.

2b. Search to verify — never trust memory or the draft

Search the web for each non-trivial claim. Do not assert from your own recall, and do not assume the draft is right because it sounds confident. Anecdotes are passed hand to hand and embellished at every step; the polished version is usually the wrong one.

For each claim, classify it: accurate, overstated (true event, dramatized details), wrong, or unverifiable.

2c. Failure modes to hunt for

• Embellishment for effect. A real event inflated for drama. A detail that undercuts the drama (e.g. a "total loss" that was rebuilt in three weeks) is usually the tell that the loss was not total.
• Quote provenance. Who actually said it, in which work, and how reliable is the chain? A line recalled by a relative decades later is weak evidence. Say so.
• Floating attributions. The same line pinned on different figures across history. Name the specific source being cited and attribute it to the teller.
• Wrong specifics. Dates, ages, locations, numbers. Check them individually.
• Contested history dressed as fact. Where sources disagree, attribute to the teller ("by one account") rather than asserting it flat.

2d. Anecdote-overuse check

Flag any anecdote that is the single most recycled story in its genre (the starfish, the two wolves, the boiling frog, and their equivalents in whatever field the piece sits in). Overuse is a slop signal even when the facts check out — a reader who knows the space has seen it a hundred times. When you flag one, offer a fresher, better-sourced substitute that makes the identical point.

2e. Report, don't silently fix

Surface findings and let the author decide. They own the call to keep, correct, or swap. For each problem, deliver: what's wrong, the source that shows it, a corrected version that drops the false detail, and where relevant a better-sourced alternative. Never publish a claim that can't be attributed confidently. If nothing is wrong, say the claims check out and move on — don't manufacture problems.

Step 3 — Improve the Article

Edit the draft with these priorities in order:

1. Grammar: fix subject-verb agreement, articles (a/an/the), uncountable nouns ("equipment" not "equipments"), tense consistency, prepositions.
2. Redundancy: remove sentences that restate what the previous sentence already said.
3. Vocabulary: upgrade where a more precise word exists. Never use a complex word where a simple one works equally well.
4. Quotes: if the draft leans on a tired, over-quoted line, flag it and offer a fresher alternative that fits the author's subject. Carry over the verified attribution from Step 2.
5. Examples: fold in the corrections from Step 2. If an anecdote was overstated or wrong, use the corrected or substituted version. More vivid and specific is always better, but only once it is true.
6. Opening: if it opens with throat-clearing or borrowed authority, restructure into an observation, contradiction, or question — in the author's own register.
7. Closing: if there's a CTA, make it match the article's own frame, not a generic sign-off.

Preserve everything that is already working. Do not rewrite into a different voice. The goal is to make the author sound more like themselves at their best, not like someone else.

Step 4 — Suggest Three Titles

Match the author's own title pattern where one is visible in their samples. Absent that, a reliable default is an intriguing statement + a clarifying subtitle after a dash.

Title rules:

• Address the misconception the article corrects, OR name the tension the article sits inside.
• Subtitle clarifies what the reader gets, not just what the article is "about."
• No clickbait. No generic filler ("The Wisdom of X").
• Short. If it needs to be explained, it's not the right title.

Present three options. Recommend one clearly and say why.

Step 5 — Suggest a Cover Graphic

Analyze the article's core theme, dominant metaphor, and mood. Then produce:

Graphic Concept

One paragraph describing what the image should feel and say — its symbolic meaning, composition idea, and how it connects to the article's central argument. This is for the author to evaluate whether the concept fits before generating.

Image Generation Prompt

A detailed, ready-to-use prompt for an AI image generator (works with DALL-E, Midjourney, Stable Diffusion). Structure:

[Subject / scene] — [composition] — [style] — [color palette] — [mood] — [negative constraints]

Requirements for the prompt:

• No text in image unless specifically requested.
• Editorial aesthetic — clean and purposeful, not generic stock-photo.
• Match the mood of the piece and, where known, the author's visual identity.
• Specify: art direction style (illustration, photography, watercolor, etc.), color palette, mood, and what to exclude.
• Keep it under 100 words. Dense prompts lose precision.

Style Guidance

Two lines: what to emphasize, what to avoid. Helps the author adjust the prompt if the first generation misses.

Output Format

Deliver in this order, clearly separated:

## Fact-Check

[Only the claims that need attention. For each: the claim, the verdict (accurate / overstated / wrong / unverifiable), the source, and the fix or better-sourced alternative. If everything checks out, say so in one line. If an anecdote is sound but overused, flag it here with a fresher substitute.]

---

## Titles

1. [Title option 1]
2. [Title option 2]
3. [Title option 3]

**Recommendation**: [Which one and one sentence why]

---

## Improved Article

[Full improved article text, built on the verified/corrected facts]

---

## Cover Graphic

**Concept:** [Paragraph on what the image should convey]

**Image Prompt:**
[Ready-to-use generation prompt]

**Style Notes:** [Two lines on what to emphasize and avoid]

---

## What Changed

[3-5 bullet points: the most significant edits and the reason for each. Keep this brief — the article speaks for itself.]

Principles to Never Violate

• Never change the author's voice into someone else's, and never impose a philosophy, quote set, or house style they didn't bring.
• Never add complexity where simplicity works.
• Never publish a factual claim you haven't verified by search, and never assert a contested detail as fact — attribute it to the teller.
• Never quote something you can't attribute confidently.
• Never silently "fix" a factual problem — surface it and let the author decide.
• Never suggest an image that would require text, logos, or copyrighted symbols.
• Never close without the graphic suggestion — it is a required deliverable of this skill.