Writing Quality Check
Purpose
A set of context-sensitive writing diagnostics for clear, precise academic prose, regardless of who wrote it.
Design boundary: This checklist improves writing quality. It is NOT a humanizer. We do not aim to fool AI detectors. We aim to produce clear, precise, varied academic prose.
Reference this checklist during the self-review step of drafting (draft_writer_agent Step 2.7, report_compiler_agent final check).
Priority and scope: Author requirements and target venue rules take priority, followed by discipline conventions and the approved Style Profile. The patterns below are non-blocking prompts for judgment, not vocabulary bans, punctuation quotas, paragraph templates, or a pass/fail score. Revise only when a specific clarity, precision, or support problem warrants it. Preserve formal word limits, citation and evidence requirements, quoted source text, and the authorized revision scope; this checklist does not authorize rewriting otherwise sound prose or weakening a claim's evidential support.
A. High-Frequency Term Warnings
The following terms can be vague or overused in context. They are not banned and do not establish authorship. When reviewing one, ask: "Is this the most precise word here?" Keep it when the answer is yes.
Flagged Terms
| Term | Why it's flagged | Better alternatives (context-dependent) |
|---|---|---|
| delve | Overused as "explore" substitute | examine, investigate, analyze, explore |
| tapestry | Cliché metaphor for complexity | network, interplay, system, landscape |
| landscape | Vague when not literal | field, domain, context, state of |
| pivotal | Inflation of importance | important, significant, central, key |
| crucial | Same as above | essential, necessary, critical, vital |
| foster | Vague verb | promote, develop, cultivate, encourage |
| showcase | Non-academic register | demonstrate, illustrate, present, reveal |
| testament | Cliché | evidence, indicator, demonstration |
| navigate | Vague when not literal | manage, address, handle, negotiate |
| leverage | Business jargon | use, employ, utilize, apply |
| realm | Archaic/poetic | domain, field, area, sphere |
| embark | Overwrought for "begin" | begin, initiate, undertake, start |
| underscore | Overused emphasis verb | emphasize, highlight, stress, reinforce |
| multifaceted | Vague complexity claim | complex, varied, diverse, multilayered |
| nuanced | Often vacuous | subtle, detailed, fine-grained, qualified |
| comprehensive | Often unjustified | thorough, extensive, broad, detailed |
| robust | Vague quality claim | reliable, strong, rigorous, resilient |
| intricate | Same problem as multifaceted | complex, detailed, elaborate, involved |
| cornerstone | Cliché metaphor | foundation, basis, core element, pillar |
| paradigm | Overused outside philosophy of science | framework, model, approach (exception: "paradigm shift" in philosophy of science is standard) |
| synergy | Business jargon | interaction, cooperation, combined effect |
| holistic | Vague without definition | comprehensive, integrated, whole-system |
| streamline | Non-academic | simplify, optimize, improve efficiency |
| cutting-edge | Cliché | recent, advanced, state-of-the-art, novel |
| groundbreaking | Inflation | novel, innovative, pioneering, original |
Exception Rule
If a flagged term is standard terminology in the target discipline, it is exempt:
- "paradigm shift" in philosophy of science → OK
- "landscape" in ecology/geography (literal) → OK
- "robust" in statistics ("robust estimator") → OK
- "navigate" in wayfinding research (literal) → OK
B. Punctuation Pattern Review
Em Dash (—)
- Check: Does the aside clarify the argument, or interrupt it unnecessarily?
- Possible revision: Use commas, parentheses, or a separate sentence when that improves readability. Keep an effective em dash where the author's and venue's style permits it
- Exception: Direct quotes from sources retain their original punctuation
Semicolons
- Check: Are the linked clauses closely related and easy to follow?
- Possible revision: Split an overloaded sentence when a period makes the relationship clearer. Keep semicolons that aid meaning or are required by citation/style conventions
Colon-List Sequences
- Check: Do repeated lists clarify comparable items, procedures, or findings, or fragment the argument?
- Possible revision: Integrate items into prose or consolidate lists when that improves the explanation. Repeated lists are appropriate when the content or required format calls for them
C. Throat-Clearing Openers
Review these openers for unnecessary wording. The examples below suggest possible edits, not mandatory substitutions; keep signposting or qualification that helps the reader, and preserve the strength and meaning of the supported claim.
| Throat-clearing phrase | What to do |
|---|---|
| "In the realm of..." | Delete. Start with the actual subject |
| "It's important to note that..." | Delete. If it's important, the content speaks for itself |
| "It is worth mentioning that..." | Same as above |
| "In today's rapidly evolving..." | Delete. Timestamped clichés add no information |
| "This serves as a testament to..." | Replace with direct claim: "This demonstrates..." or just state the evidence |
| "It goes without saying that..." | If it goes without saying, don't say it |
| "In order to..." | Replace with "To..." |
| "It should be noted that..." | Delete. Just note it |
| "As a matter of fact..." | Delete. State the fact |
| "When it comes to..." | Replace with the subject directly: "X shows..." |
| "At the end of the day..." | Delete. Colloquial and vague |
| "With that being said..." | Delete or use "However" if a contrast is intended |
Meta-Commentary to Avoid
Also watch for sentences that describe what the paper is doing instead of doing it:
- "This section will discuss..." → Just discuss it
- "The following paragraph examines..." → Just examine it
- "We now turn our attention to..." → Just turn to it
Exception: Roadmap sentences in the Introduction ("Section 2 reviews the literature; Section 3 describes the methodology") are standard academic practice and should be kept.
D. Structure Pattern Warnings
Rule of Three Compulsion
- Pattern: Every argument has exactly 3 sub-points, every list has exactly 3 items
- Why: Real analysis doesn't always decompose into trios. Two strong points beat three padded ones
- Fix: Use as many points as the evidence warrants. 2 is fine. 5 is fine. Don't pad to 3
Paragraph Length
- Check: Does each paragraph have enough space to develop its point without padding or overload?
- Possible revision: Split or combine paragraphs when the argument becomes easier to follow. Similar lengths can be appropriate; do not introduce variation for its own sake
Synonym Cycling
- Pattern: Switching terms for the same concept merely to avoid repetition
- Why: In academic writing, consistent terminology is a virtue. Swapping "students" → "learners" → "participants" → "subjects" within one paragraph confuses rather than impresses
- Possible revision: Use consistent terminology for the same construct and distinguish terms when they mean different things. Preserve meaningful technical distinctions and the wording of quoted sources
Binary Contrast Overuse
- Check: Does the contrast identify a supported distinction, or impose a false dichotomy or repetitive framing?
- Possible revision: State the actual relationship directly when the contrast obscures it. Keep useful, supported contrasts
Mirror Structure
- Pattern: Every section has the same internal structure (topic sentence → 3 evidence points → synthesis sentence)
- Check: Does the repeated structure fit each section's purpose, or leave analysis missing or padded?
- Possible revision: Let section structure follow content needs. Methods can be procedural and discussion can be exploratory; keep parallel structures when they aid comparison or satisfy the required format
E. Sentence Length and Readability
What to Check
Match sentence length to meaning and the reader's needs. Short sentences can emphasize a finding; longer ones can explain a relationship. Similar lengths are acceptable when the passage remains clear.
Review Prompt
If a passage is difficult to follow or sounds repetitive, check whether sentence structure contributes to the problem. Word-count similarity alone is not a defect and does not require revision.
Possible Revisions
- Split an overloaded sentence at a meaningful boundary
- Combine fragmented statements when this makes their relationship clearer
- Read the paragraph aloud to identify awkward phrasing; preserve accurate, readable prose even when its sentence lengths are similar
Section Context
Abstracts must respect venue length and structure requirements. Methods may benefit from parallel procedural sentences; results and discussion may need different amounts of explanation. Choose the form that communicates the evidence and reasoning.
F. Acronyms (Script Check, #849)
scripts/check_acronyms.py checks the acronyms in a Markdown or plain-text manuscript. It calls no model and never changes the file. Its rules follow common journal copyediting practice, and author and venue requirements come first (Priority and scope above).
- Define at first use. Give the full form, then the acronym in parentheses: randomized controlled trial (RCT). Later uses take the acronym alone.
- Each scope defines its own. The body, the English abstract, and the Chinese abstract are separate scopes. The Chinese form
全稱（English full form, ABBR）counts as a definition. - Define once per scope. A second definition in the same scope is reported.
- Allowlist. Acronyms on the script's default list (DNA, PhD, DOI, and similar) or on the author's list (
--allow,--allow-file) need no definition. The allowlist exempts rules 1 and 3 only.
When the Caller Runs It
The caller, meaning the session that dispatches the writing or review agents, runs the script; those agents cannot run scripts. The writer saves its draft as draft.md in its phase4_*/ folder, and abstract_bilingual_agent saves its abstracts as abstract.md in its phase5_*/ folder, so the check reads a file an agent already wrote. Set --lang to the user's language (en or zh-TW) and show the report as printed.
| Point | Input | --scopes |
Report goes to |
|---|---|---|---|
Phase 4b in full mode |
phase4_*/draft.md (the Draft Body) |
body |
the next Phase 4b call; never Phase 6a or 6b |
Any other drafting call (draft_writer_agent Step 3) |
phase4_*/draft.md |
body |
the writer, in a fix call |
Abstracts written (Phase 5b, or abstract-only mode) |
phase5_*/abstract.md |
the abstract scopes the run produced | abstract_bilingual_agent, in a fix call |
Revision round (revision mode) |
the anchored draft, after anchorize |
all (the default) | the round's writer call, with the roadmap |
Review decision (academic-paper-reviewer), once the decision is final |
the reviewed manuscript file | all (the default) | the Editorial Decision Letter's last section (academic-paper-reviewer/SKILL.md § Acronym check attachment) |
For example: python3 scripts/check_acronyms.py --input phase4_composition/draft.md --scopes body --lang en.
- Pass a report to an agent only when it has findings. In
fullmode the writer fixes them in its next Phase 4b draft, and in a revision round with patch operations; otherwise the agent makes targeted edits to the file the check read, not a new full draft.draft_writer_agent.mdandabstract_bilingual_agent.mdsay which findings each may fix. - Run the check again only after an agent has edited the prose (in a revision round, on the applied draft), and show the user the last report.
- An integrity-correction round makes no acronym fix.
Reading the Report
- Findings are advisory. They ask for no reply, and they never block a handoff, change a decision, or stop a run.
(complete)on the coverage line means every requested scope was read. Apartialreport lists what it did not read, and aNot checkedreport (exit status 2) gives the reason nothing was read. Neither is a clean result.- If the script cannot run at all, say that the acronym check did not run; never report it as clean.
How to Use This Checklist
During Drafting (Preferred)
Use these diagnostics in the self-review sub-step (Step 2.7 in draft_writer_agent) when they help resolve an actual writing problem.
During Final Review (Fallback)
Review the assembled paper for clarity, precision, and supported claims before handoff to citation_compliance_agent. Do not repeat cosmetic passes once the relevant problems are resolved.
Review Outcome
Resolve identified writing problems within the authorized scope and report material evidence gaps or unmet author/venue requirements; nothing in this checklist alone blocks handoff.