技能 tech-writing-proofread
📦
tech-writing-proofread
內容修訂 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.
支援: Claude Codex Code(CC)
使用我的智慧代理安裝
將此請求複製給你的智慧代理，其中包含權威 Skill 頁面和清單。
智能體請求
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.你的智慧代理仍應顯示其計畫，並依安全政策請求必要確認。
Agent 可讀資源
當 AI Agent、爬蟲或腳本需要乾淨脈絡、而不是讀取完整頁面時，請使用這些連結。
測試它
正在使用「tech-writing-proofread」。 The system call the callback. Examples are available on github.
預期結果:
- 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.
預期結果:
- 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.
安全審計
安全v1 • 2026/10/6 開啟版本化報告
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
已掃描檔案
57
分析行數
0
複核項目
0
已忽略的誤報
風險因素
最近一次完成的靜態與語意稽核未偵測到已確認的安全發現。這並不能證明該 Skill 沒有副作用。
審計單位: codex
分享與引用此報告
分享版本化評估報告、中性徽章、嵌入卡片與引用。Skillstore 只報告證據，不判斷該 Skill 是否安全。
複製報告連結
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>學術引用 (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 評分
評分依據 證據置信度: 中 55
架構
85
可維護性
87
內容
65
社群
83
規範符合度
你可以打造什麼
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.
試試這些提示
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.
最佳實務
- 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.
常見問題
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.