# Proofreading Style Check > Use when the user wants to proofread, style-check, or QA an article against editorial guidelines. Reads an article file and an editorial-guidelines.md, returns an inline diff plus a findings report. Optional LanguageTool layer for grammar. - Skill: `busyeugene/proofreading-style-check` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add busyeugene/proofreading-style-check` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/busyeugene/proofreading-style-check/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Docs & Writing - License: MIT - Author: busyeugene (https://skillmd.com/u/busyeugene) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/busyeugene/proofreading-style-check --- # Proofreading + Style Check Check any markdown article against `editorial-guidelines.md` and `seo-best-practices.md`. Returns two artifacts: an inline-edited copy with suggested changes marked, and a findings report categorized by severity. ## Setup No required keys. Optional: - `LANGUAGETOOL_ENDPOINT` (default `https://api.languagetool.org/v2`) — adds a free grammar/spelling pass on top of Claude's native review. Works keyless, or self-host LanguageTool for privacy. ## Inputs 1. **Article path** (required). Glob `posts/*.md` and let the user pick if not specified. 2. **Editorial guidelines path** — default `./editorial-guidelines.md`. If missing, fall back to the shared voice reference and note it. 3. **Severity threshold** — `critical`, `warning`, `suggestion`. Default: report all three. ## Process ### 1. Load inputs - Read the article. - Read the editorial guidelines. - Read `{SKILL_BASE}/../_shared/seo-best-practices.md`. ### 2. Extract rules into a checklist From the editorial guidelines, pull: - Banned words/phrases list - Preferred words and naming conventions - Sentence length ceiling - Paragraph length ceiling - POV (we/you/I/third) - Contractions policy - Emoji policy - Serial comma rule - Numerals vs words rule - Reading level target - Structural defaults for the article's format (how-to / comparison / opinion / case study — infer from the article or ask) From the SEO best practices, pull the hard rules: - Primary keyword in first 100 words - Keyword in H1 and at least one H2 - Exactly one H1, no skipped heading levels - 2–4 outbound authoritative links - At least 3 descriptive internal links - Meta title 50–60 chars, meta description 140–160 chars - Hero image alt text present and descriptive ### 3. Pass 1 — mechanical checks (deterministic) Walk the article and flag every occurrence of: - Banned words (exact match, case-insensitive) - Wrong product-name casing - Sentences over the length ceiling - Paragraphs over the length ceiling - POV violations (e.g. first-person in a you-mode guideline) - Missing Oxford commas in lists of 3+ where the rule is set - Heading-level skips (H2 → H4) - More than one H1 - Missing frontmatter fields Each flag becomes a finding with: line number, severity, rule name, the offending text, and a suggested fix. ### 4. Pass 2 — SEO compliance (deterministic) Check the article against the SEO rules list above. Each violation becomes a `critical` finding. ### 5. Pass 3 — voice and tone (Claude judgment) Read the whole article and judge voice match. Flag: - Sections that feel off-brand compared to the guidelines' voice attributes - Hype-y phrasing that skirts the banned list without matching exact strings - Weak ledes (the first sentence of a section doesn't state the claim) - Sections that don't earn their place (could be cut without losing value) - Missing the "one thing competitors don't cover" originality test - Closers that don't point to a concrete next action Each flag is a `warning` or `suggestion`. ### 6. Pass 4 — optional grammar layer If `LANGUAGETOOL_ENDPOINT` is set, POST the article body to `/check`: ``` POST ${LANGUAGETOOL_ENDPOINT}/check Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded text=&language=en-US&enabledOnly=false ``` Map each match to a finding with severity `suggestion` (grammar) or `warning` (likely errors). Deduplicate against Pass 1 findings. ### 7. Write two artifacts **Artifact 1: inline-edited copy** at `review/-edited.md` Copy of the original with suggested changes marked using `` / `` HTML tags so diffs are visible in any markdown renderer: ``` The product is a ~~revolutionary~~category-defining platform. ``` **Artifact 2: findings report** at `review/-report.md` ```markdown # Review: {slug} _Checked against: {path to editorial-guidelines.md}_ _Date: {YYYY-MM-DD}_ ## Summary - **Critical:** {n} — must fix before publishing - **Warnings:** {n} — strongly recommended - **Suggestions:** {n} — worth considering ## Critical findings ### [L{line}] {rule name} - **Found:** {offending text} - **Why it matters:** {1 line} - **Suggested fix:** {fix} {…} ## Warnings {same structure} ## Suggestions {same structure} ## Checklist summary | Check | Result | |---|---| | Primary keyword in first 100 words | ✅/❌ | | Keyword in H1 | ✅/❌ | | Keyword in ≥1 H2 | ✅/❌ | | Exactly one H1 | ✅/❌ | | No skipped heading levels | ✅/❌ | | Meta title length (50–60) | ✅/❌ | | Meta description length (140–160) | ✅/❌ | | ≥3 internal links | ✅/❌ | | 2–4 outbound links | ✅/❌ | | Hero alt text present | ✅/❌ | | No banned words | ✅/❌ | | Sentence length within ceiling | ✅/❌ | | Reading level in target range | ✅/❌ | | Closer has concrete next action | ✅/❌ | ``` ### 8. Print summary to console 5 lines: path to edited file, path to report, counts of critical/warning/suggestion, and a one-line verdict (`ready to publish`, `fix criticals first`, `needs rewrite`). ## Fallbacks - **No editorial guidelines:** use shared voice reference, note it in the report header. Voice/tone findings are marked `suggestion` only (not `warning`) since the rules weren't user-authored. - **LanguageTool unavailable:** skip Pass 4, note it in the report. - **Article has no frontmatter:** still check the body, but flag missing frontmatter as a `critical`. ## Verification 1. Both artifacts exist under `review/`. 2. Findings report has a populated checklist table. 3. Every finding has a line number, severity, rule name, and suggested fix. 4. Running this skill twice on the same unchanged article produces identical reports (deterministic within a run).