scholarly-writing-refiner

Provide the paragraph along with optional context like paper type, target journal, and polishing focus. The Skill reviews five dimensions—grammar, word choice, voice, coherence, and sentence structure—then returns annotated changes with reasons and a polished version.

It checks subject-verb agreement, article usage, dangling modifiers, run-on sentences, incomplete comparisons, broken parallelism, that/which confusion, and irregular plurals. It also covers punctuation rules like Oxford commas and abbreviation formatting.

Abstracts mix past tense for work done with present tense for conclusions. Methods and Results use past tense, Introduction mixes present and past, and Discussion uses present tense for interpretation with past tense for citing results.

Yes. Computer science writing commonly uses active voice with 'We' and tolerates some informal phrasing, while medicine and biology favor passive voice and require MeSH-conformant terminology. The Skill adapts its review to the target field's conventions.

Avoid it when you need verification of technical correctness, citations, or domain-specific claims, since polishing preserves the author's original meaning and does not validate content. It also defers to author terminology unless clearly incorrect.