Manuscript Writing

Improve academic writing while preserving the author's technical meaning. Use the revision checklist as the single editing rubric; read it before either mode.

Mode and Scope

• revision: for edit, revise, rewrite, polish, or tighten requests. Apply supported changes to the prose.
• review: for comments, feedback, critique, or suggestions. Preserve the manuscript body and place proposed changes in feedback.
• Both requested: review first, then revise; create separate outputs from the original source. Infer the mode from the deliverable; ask only if it remains ambiguous.

Read the full relevant material and identify the requested scope, audience, venue, and output format. Explicit user and venue constraints override stylistic defaults. For a narrow task, such as abbreviation cleanup, apply only relevant checks and do not expand it into a scientific audit.

Evidence Rules

• Preserve scope, certainty, mechanisms, conditions, causal relationships, baselines, and numerical meaning unless available evidence supports a correction. Identify substantive corrections and their support in the revision log.
• Do not invent facts, citations, data, definitions, or explanations to improve style or connect sentences. Checklist examples demonstrate editing patterns, not reusable scientific evidence.
• A manuscript assertion or citation marker alone is not verification. Distinguish consistency with supplied material from verification against an inspected source. State when relevant evidence is unavailable.
• Missing support does not justify substituting a different or weaker claim. Retain unresolved claims with clearly located verification notes; hedges and citation placeholders do not supply evidence. Separate evidence from interpretation and flag unsupported novelty or logical connections.

Workflow

1. Execute checklist phases 0 through 5 in order within the requested scope. In review mode, interpret editing instructions as recommendations only.
2. Track checks as completed, not applicable, outside scope, or blocked by missing evidence. Report consequential blocked checks under Needs Verification. Do not imply that unseen sections or inaccessible references were checked.
3. Complete the checklist's final flow, accuracy, and output-integrity audit before delivering the result. A full manuscript audit includes sentence, paragraph, and section flow; an excerpt audit is limited to the supplied context.

Document Files

For .doc, .docx, .pdf, and other file inputs, create a new output with a suffix such as -reviewed or -revised. Preserve the original and avoid overwriting an existing output. These are behavior instructions, not bundled document-conversion tools; use capabilities available in the host.

• Review: use native anchored comments in a DOCX copy or annotations in a PDF copy. Put proposed wording, verification steps, and citation needs inside those comments; keep the body unchanged.
• Revision: apply supported changes to the new document body. Reserve comments for unresolved verification needs, rationale requiring author review, or questions. Do not repeat already-applied edits as suggestions in comments.
• Convert legacy .doc to .docx when needed. For PDF revision, use a faithful editable conversion when direct editing is unreliable; disclose format changes and conversion losses.
• Preserve existing comments and tracked changes. If annotations cannot be produced, provide a separate review report with quoted anchors and locations, explicitly labeled as a fallback. If conversion cannot preserve content faithfully, report the limitation rather than claiming a complete revised document.

Delivery

For revision, return the revised pasted text or the new file path, followed by a concise revision log. Put unresolved issues in a separate Needs Verification list or in document comments; make their locations clear.

For review, return grouped suggestions for pasted text or the new commented file path. Each issue needs a location, the problem, why it matters, and a concrete action. Include a short optional rewrite only when supported and useful. Prioritize scientific errors and evidence gaps before flow and style; stylistic preferences are not factual requirements.

Report checks not performed and artifact limitations where they affect the result. Do not claim that a file was created, rendered, or verified unless those actions succeeded.