技能 tech-writing-proofread
📦
tech-writing-proofread
内容修订 r1 安全 ⚙️ 外部命令
Proofread English Technical Documents
Technical drafts can contain language errors and inconsistent terminology that make instructions harder to follow. This skill provides specific corrections, reasons, and issue counts while preserving the authorial voice.
支持: Claude Codex Code(CC)
使用我的智能体安装
将此请求复制给你的智能体，其中包含权威 Skill 页面和清单。
智能体请求
Review the Skillstore skill "tech-writing-proofread" from https://skillstore.io/skills/alapha888-tech-writing-proofread.md and its manifest at https://skillstore.io/api/skills/alapha888-tech-writing-proofread/manifest. Verify the artifact. You may proceed after verification, subject to the environment's own policy.你的智能体仍应展示其计划，并按安全策略请求必要确认。
Agent 可读资源
当 AI Agent、爬虫或脚本需要干净上下文，而不是读取完整页面时，请使用这些链接。
测试它
正在使用“tech-writing-proofread”。 The system call the callback. Examples are available on github.
预期结果:
- 1. [Grammar] Original: The system call the callback. Suggestion: The system calls the callback. Reason: Singular subject requires calls.
- 2. [Proper noun] Original: github. Suggestion: GitHub. Reason: Use official product casing.
- Statistics: 2 items; grammar 1, proper noun 1.
正在使用“tech-writing-proofread”。 Register a callback function. The callback function handles errors. The callback handles completion. Simply invoke the handler.
预期结果:
- 1. [Terminology] Original: The callback handles completion. Suggestion: The callback function handles completion. Reason: Use the most frequent term consistently.
- 2. [Style] Original: Simply invoke the handler. Suggestion: Invoke the handler. Reason: Remove filler.
- Statistics: 2 items; terminology 1, style 1.
安全审计
安全v1 • 2026/10/6 打开版本化报告
All six static findings are false positives caused by Markdown backticks and plain-text example fences. No evidence found of executable commands, data exfiltration, or prompt injection in SKILL.md.
1
已扫描文件
57
分析行数
0
复核项
0
已忽略误报
风险因素
最新一次完成的静态与语义审计未检测到已确认的安全发现。这并不能证明该 Skill 没有副作用。
审计者: codex
分享与引用此报告
分享版本化评估报告、中性徽章、嵌入卡片和引用。Skillstore 只报告证据，不判断该 Skill 是否安全。
复制报告链接
https://skillstore.io/skills/alapha888-tech-writing-proofread/audits/1?utm_source=security_passport&utm_medium=share&utm_campaign=versioned_reportMarkdown 徽章
[](https://skillstore.io/skills/alapha888-tech-writing-proofread?utm_source=security_passport_badge)HTML 徽章
<a href="https://skillstore.io/skills/alapha888-tech-writing-proofread?utm_source=security_passport_badge"><img src="https://skillstore.io/badges/skills/alapha888-tech-writing-proofread/security.svg" alt="Skillstore security assessment" loading="lazy"></a>嵌入卡片
<iframe src="https://skillstore.io/embed/skills/alapha888-tech-writing-proofread.html" title="Skillstore Security Assessment" sandbox="allow-popups allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox" loading="lazy" referrerpolicy="no-referrer" width="420" height="180"></iframe>学术引用 (APA · BibTeX · CFF)
APA 引用
alapha888. (2026). tech-writing-proofread security audit report (audit version 1) [Author version unspecified]. Skillstore. https://skillstore.io/skills/alapha888-tech-writing-proofread/audits/1BibTeX 引用
@techreport{alapha888-alapha888-tech-writing-proofread-2026,
author = {alapha888},
title = {tech-writing-proofread security audit report (audit version 1)},
institution = {Skillstore},
year = {2026},
number = {1},
url = {https://skillstore.io/skills/alapha888-tech-writing-proofread/audits/1},
note = {Author version unspecified}
}CITATION.cff
cff-version: 1.2.0
message: "If you use this Skill, cite its author and this versioned security audit report."
title: "tech-writing-proofread security audit report (audit version 1)"
version: "unspecified"
type: report
authors:
- name: "alapha888"
date-released: "2026-10-06"
url: "https://skillstore.io/skills/alapha888-tech-writing-proofread/audits/1"
identifiers:
- type: other
value: "skillstore:alapha888-tech-writing-proofread:audit:1"
description: "Skillstore immutable audit report identifier"
Skillstore 评分
评分依据 证据置信度: 中 55
架构
85
可维护性
87
内容
65
社区
83
规范符合性
你能构建什么
Review a README
Find language errors, inconsistent product casing, and unclear procedural wording before publishing repository documentation.
Check an API reference
Review terminology, grammatical precision, acronym expansion, and parallel headings without changing technical claims.
Polish a technical tutorial
Identify filler words, sentence errors, and inconsistent instructions while preserving a conversational voice.
试试这些提示
Proofread a short passage
Proofread this English technical passage: [paste text]. Return an Original / Suggestion / Reason checklist and issue counts.
Review README instructions
Proofread this README in one pass: [paste README]. Check grammar, product casing, inline code formatting, and numbered steps. Preserve the existing voice.
Check API terminology
Review this API reference: [paste reference]. Build a terminology list and flag inconsistent names, nonparallel headings, and unexpanded acronyms. Mark uncertain claims [verify].
Audit a complete tutorial
Proofread this complete tutorial: [paste tutorial]. Check all six review categories, preserve its conversational tone, and avoid paragraph rewrites. Cite lines or short quotes. End with category counts.
最佳实践
- Provide the complete document so terminology and tone can be checked consistently.
- Identify whether the draft is a tutorial, API reference, blog post, or README.
- Review each suggestion and confirm items marked [verify] before applying changes.
避免
- Requesting complete paragraph rewrites instead of specific proofreading suggestions.
- Treating suspected factual errors as verified corrections.
- Requesting repeated polishing passes without a defined stopping point.
常见问题
What kinds of documents does this skill review?
It reviews English technical documents, including READMEs, tutorials, API references, and technical blog drafts.
Does it rewrite my document?
No. It provides specific corrections and reasons while preserving the existing voice and avoiding complete paragraph rewrites.
Does it check technical accuracy?
It flags suspected factual errors for verification. It does not establish technical correctness or silently change uncertain claims.
How does it handle inconsistent terminology?
It identifies multiple names for the same concept and recommends the most frequent form in the document.
What does the output include?
An Original / Suggestion / Reason checklist, line numbers or short quotes, verification flags, and issue counts by category.
Which AI tools are supported?
The report lists Claude, Codex, and Claude Code as supported tools.