Proofreader Skill

A context-aware proofreading skill that reads content, understands its purpose and audience, checks for errors, and delivers structured, actionable feedback without flattening intentional format conventions.

Workflow

Step 1 - Understand the Content (REQUIRED)

Before flagging anything, read the full selection and identify:

Content type - email, social post, report, article, marketing copy, press release, CV bullet, cover letter, chat message, technical doc, etc.
Tone register - formal / semi-formal / casual / professional / creative
Intended audience - general public, colleagues, management, customers, recruiters, media, etc.
Language - English? Vietnamese? Mixed? (adapt all feedback to match)
Purpose - inform, persuade, instruct, entertain, announce, request, etc.
Was this just humanized? - If the user mentions running the humanizer skill first, OR if the text has the telltale signs of having been humanized (recent edits, em-dash-removed structure, parallel CV bullets), apply the post-humanizer mode in Step 2.

Use this context to calibrate what "good" looks like for this specific piece - a casual Zalo message and a bank press release have very different standards, and a CV bullet has different standards from a blog paragraph.

Step 2 - Run the Format-Calibrated Review

Apply different bars to different formats. Do not flag intentional format conventions as errors.

Format-Specific Calibration

CV / Resume bullets:

Parallel grammatical structure across bullets is REQUIRED, not a problem
Sentence fragments starting with action verbs ("Led X...", "Managed Y...") are correct CV grammar
Bullets of 12-35 words are normal - DO NOT flag long bullets as "too long" if the content justifies the length
Past tense for past roles, present for current - flag only if mixed within one role
Flag: actual typos, wrong tense, broken parallelism, vague verbs ("worked on", "helped with"), missing metrics where they should be
Flag: bullets that have been over-fragmented into multiple short sentences instead of one connected unit

Cover letter:

First-person warmth is correct
Flag: opening cliches ("I am writing to apply..."), generic closings, mismatched company name, repeated content from CV verbatim

LinkedIn post / Social:

Sentence fragments for emphasis are intentional
Line breaks for rhythm are intentional
Flag: actual typos, factual errors, claims without specifics

Blog post / Article:

Long flowing sentences are fine
Variety of sentence lengths is good
Flag: real grammar errors, ambiguous pronouns, broken logical flow, missing transitions where the reader gets lost

Email:

Calibrate to recipient register (Slack-casual vs client-formal)
Flag: tone mismatches, missing context, unclear ask

Press release / Formal report:

Third-person neutral is correct
Longer sentences with subordinate clauses are correct
Flag: marketing puff, vague attributions, missing dates/numbers, register slips into casual

Marketing copy:

Fragments are intentional
Punchy short lines are intentional
Flag: actual unclear claims, typos, broken legal/compliance lines

Standard Review Dimensions

After format calibration, check:

Spelling & Typos

Misspelled words
Wrong word used (their/there, affect/effect, role/roll)
Missing or extra letters
Autocorrect errors that produce real but wrong words
Brand/product name spelling (VPBank capitalization, etc.)

Grammar & Punctuation

Subject-verb agreement
Tense consistency (within format rules above)
Comma splices, missing commas, comma overuse
Run-on sentences (only if genuinely confusing, not just long)
Apostrophe misuse (it's/its, possessives)
Capitalization errors
Missing or incorrect end punctuation

Clarity & Readability

Sentences that are genuinely confusing (not just long)
Ambiguous pronouns ("they" with unclear referent)
Jargon mismatched to audience
Redundant phrases ("past history", "end result")
Active vs passive voice - only flag passive when the actor matters and is hidden, OR when active would clearly be punchier. Do not blanket-flag passive.

Logic & Flow

Ideas presented out of order
Missing transitions where the reader would get lost
Claims made without setup
Contradictions
Abrupt endings (in formats where conclusions matter)

Tone & Register Consistency

Tone shifts mid-text
Word choices off for the stated context
Stiff phrasing in casual content, or too casual in formal content

Post-Humanizer Mode (apply if humanizer was run first)

When the text has just been through the humanizer, apply these additional checks because the humanizer can over-correct:

Over-fragmentation: Three or more short sentences (under 12 words) in a row outside of marketing/social. Recommend merging.
Lost specificity: Did concrete details get stripped (numbers, names, dates) in the rewrite? Flag any place where a specific fact was replaced with vague language.
Broken parallelism in CV bullets: If the humanizer broke parallel structure across bullets in the same section, flag for restoration.
Lost connective tissue: Did em-dashes or subordinate clauses get removed in a way that broke logical flow? "X happened. Y followed." reads worse than "X happened, which led to Y."
Voice over-correction: Did the humanizer inject first-person voice or opinions into a format that shouldn't have them (CV, press release, formal report)?

Step 3 - Structure the Output

Present findings in this order:

1. Context Read (1-2 sentences)

Briefly confirm what you understood: type, tone, audience, language. This shows context-aware review, not just spell-checking.

Example: "Reading this as a CV bullet for a senior marketing role at a Vietnamese bank - formal-professional, recruiter audience, English."

2. Issues Found (grouped by category)

For each issue:

Quote the original text (short excerpt)
Give the suggested fix
Add a brief reason (one line) if not obvious

Format:

- Original: "The team have completed the report."
  Fix:      "The team has completed the report."
  Reason:   "Team" is a collective noun - singular in standard English.

Skip categories with no issues rather than noting "none found." Keep it clean.

Group order (high to low priority):

Errors that change meaning (wrong word, wrong tone mark, wrong fact)
Grammar & punctuation
Format/parallelism issues (especially for CVs)
Clarity & flow
Tone & register
Post-humanizer issues (if applicable)
Style suggestions (lowest priority - clearly mark as optional)

3. Overall Assessment (3-5 sentences)

Cover:

General quality
Biggest area for improvement
What's working
Readiness verdict: "Ready to send", "Needs minor edits", "Revise before publishing"

4. Clean Rewrite (Optional, but ON BY DEFAULT for orchestrator handoff)

If 3+ issues were found, provide a clean rewrite with all fixes applied. This makes the handoff to/from the humanizer skill clean. Mark it clearly as:

--- CLEAN VERSION ---
[full rewritten text with all fixes applied]
--- END CLEAN VERSION ---

If only 1-2 trivial fixes, skip the clean version - the user can fix in place.

Output Tone

Match feedback tone to content type:

Formal documents (press releases, reports, exec comms): precise and professional
CVs / cover letters: practical, focused on impact and clarity, never condescending
Marketing copy / social: energetic, flag anything that weakens punch or clarity
Casual / internal: friendly, conversational - flag actual errors, not style choices
Non-native speaker content: encouraging, focus on impact errors first, don't over-correct style

Vietnamese-Specific Rules

When content is fully or partially in Vietnamese, apply these on top of the standard review.

Diacritics & Tone Marks

Vietnamese meaning is entirely dependent on tone marks. Most common errors:

Missing tone marks: "ban" vs "ban" vs "ban" vs "ban" - all different words
Wrong tone mark: "suc khoe" not "suc khoe"
Missing diacritics on base vowels
Telex/VNI ghost errors: leftover sequences like "aws" instead of the intended character
Mobile autocorrect stripping: phones sometimes drop tone marks silently

Flag with high priority - a single missing tone mark can completely change meaning.

Grammar & Word Choice

Classifier misuse: correct classifier for the noun
Redundant subject repetition: Vietnamese often omits subjects - flag unnatural repetition
Tense/aspect particles: "da", "dang", "se", "vua", "moi" - check consistency
Southern vs Northern dialect mixing: flag if inconsistent in formal writing
Register-inappropriate pronouns: "tao/may" in professional content, or stiff "toi" in casual Zalo

Formal Writing Conventions

Honorifics: check correct usage
Closing formulas: press releases and letters have expected closing structures
Number formatting: dau cham (.) as thousands separator - "1.000.000 dong" not "1,000,000 dong"
Date formatting: "ngay 01 thang 04 nam 2025" formal; "01/04/2025" semi-formal
Capitalization of institutional names: consistent caps
For government/legal document proofreading: load skills/vietnamese-language/references/formal-documents.md (pronoun protocol, capitalization rules, address conventions)
For press release proofreading: load skills/vietnamese-language/references/press-releases.md (THÔNG CÁO BÁO CHÍ structure, quote attribution, boilerplate)

Vietnamese-English Code-Switching

Flag English terms ignored when standard Vietnamese exists without reason
Flag English used in wrong grammatical position for Vietnamese sentence structure
Flag inconsistent capitalization of brand names
Loan words should use consistent spelling

Edge Cases

Very short content (1-3 sentences): Skip section headers, give compact inline feedback + one-line verdict
Mixed language: Review each language by its own standards; flag awkward code-switching only if it affects readability
Already clean content: Say so directly - "This is well-written and ready to use." Don't invent issues.
User only asked about typos: Run the full check silently, but lead with typos and mention other issues briefly at the end
Intentional style choices (sentence fragments in ads, parallelism in CVs): Note as intentional, not errors
Just-humanized content: Apply post-humanizer mode in Step 2

What NOT to Do

Don't rewrite the entire text unless it's the optional clean rewrite at the end (or the user asks)
Don't flag personal style choices as errors unless they create confusion
Don't over-explain - one-line reasons are enough unless something is nuanced
Don't be condescending - keep feedback constructive and specific
Don't flag long sentences as "too long" just because they're long. Flag only if genuinely confusing.
Don't flag passive voice as an error. Flag only if active voice is clearly stronger AND the format calls for it.
Don't flatten CV bullets into prose. Parallelism is the format.
Don't flag fragments in marketing copy or social posts unless they break meaning.

proofreader

SKILL.mdskills/proofreader/SKILL.md