majiayu000 SPELLING_GRAMMAR_CHECKER
EXECUTION PHASES
Phase 1: Clarification (Ask)
Logic: Input_Requirement != Complete -> Stop && Ask.
- IF File_Path_Missing AND Text_Pasted_Missing -> Request(Input)
- IF Content_Type_Ambiguous -> Confirm(Docs vs UI vs Code_Comments)
- IF Output_Format_Unclear -> Confirm(Report vs Fix_Suggestions vs Diff)
Phase 2: Planning (Think)
Logic: Task -> Plan -> Approval.
- Identify: File_Paths OR Pasted_Text
- Determine: Content_Type (Docs/UI/Comments)
- Validate: User_Intent (Review vs Auto_Fix)
- IF Impact > Low -> Propose(Files + Changes) -> Wait(Confirmation)
Phase 3: Execution (Do)
Logic: Step_1 -> Verify -> Step_2.
Step 1: Extraction
- Input -> Read_File OR Parse_Pasted_Text
- Extract: Natural_Language_Excerpts + Line_Numbers
- Priority: Docs > UI > Comments > Code_Blocks (unless Explicit_Request)
Step 2: Automated Tool Recommendations
- Suggest:
codespell,cspell,languagetool,vale,aspell,hunspell,alex - Format: Exact_Command_Examples + Installation_Instructions
- CRITICAL: DO NOT EXECUTE external tools (run NOT by the agent)
- Action: READ FILE:
@references/commands.md
Step 3: Manual Validation
- Check: Subject-Verb_Agreement, Tense, Pronoun_Clarity, Parallel_Structure, Punctuation
- Validate: Run-on_Sentences, Passive/Active_Voice, Clarity, Jargon_Context
- Verify: Technical_Accuracy (do NOT change validated terms without confirmation)
- Assess: Style_Consistency across document
Step 4: Classification
- Priority: User_Visible > Internal
- Assign: HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW Severity
- HIGH: Comprehension_Issues (Misspelled_Terms, Grammar_Errors, Incorrect_Technical_Terms)
- MEDIUM: Professionalism_Issues (Typos, Minor_Grammar, Inconsistent_Style)
- LOW: Minor_Issues (Style_Improvements, Very_Minor_Typos, Word_Choice_Alternatives)
Step 5: Output Generation
- Format: Structured_Report (Schema below)
- IF User_Requests_Fixes -> Provide: Diff_Suggestions
- CONSTRAINT: DO NOT modify files
Phase 4: Validation (Check)
Logic: Result -> Checklist -> Done.
- Text_Extracted
- Tool_Commands_Generated
- Grammar_Rules_Validated
- Style_Consistency_Checked
- Technical_Terms_Verified
- Severity_Assigned_Correctly
- Output_Matches_Schema
OUTPUT SCHEMA (Exact)
[SEVERITY] Issue Type
Description: Clear explanation of error and impact.
Location: file_path:line_number
Original Text: problematic text here
Corrected Text: corrected text here
Explanation: Brief rationale for correction.
COMMON ERRORS (Reference)
Spelling
recieve → receive
seperate → separate
accomodate → accommodate
definately → definitely
occured → occurred
priviledge → privilege
recomend → recommend
sucess → success
Grammar Anti-patterns
# Subject-verb disagreement
WRONG: The list of items contain errors.
CORRECT: The list of items contains errors.
# Incorrect tense
WRONG: He go to the store yesterday.
CORRECT: He went to the store yesterday.
# Missing apostrophe
WRONG: The teams strategy was flawed.
CORRECT: The team's strategy was flawed.
# Run-on sentence
WRONG: This is a test it should work.
CORRECT: This is a test. It should work.
# Dangling modifier
WRONG: Running down the street, the trees were beautiful.
CORRECT: Running down the street, I saw that the trees were beautiful.
Clarity Issues
# Ambiguous pronoun
UNCLEAR: John told Mike he was wrong. (Who is "he"?)
CLEAR: John told Mike that Mike was wrong.
# Jargon without context
UNCLEAR: We need to leverage synergies in our CI/CD pipeline.
CLEAR: We need to improve integration in our continuous integration/deployment pipeline.
# Passive voice confusion
UNCLEAR: The report was completed by the team.
CLEAR: The team completed the report on Tuesday.
CRITICAL RULES
- Priority: Docs/UI > Comments > Code_Blocks (unless Explicit)
- Context_Aware: Do NOT flag validated technical terms as errors without confirmation
- Tone: Professional. Preserve project-specific terminology when appropriate
- Consistency: Ensure terminology/style used consistently across document
- Accuracy: Confirm technical terms/statements factually correct before changing
REVIEW GUIDELINES
- Use appropriate tools for content_type (docs vs comments)
- Consider audience - technical docs use different conventions than user-facing content
- Respect project conventions - specific terminology/style preferences
- Check false positives - technical terms may appear as spelling errors
- Prioritize user-visible text - docs, UI, comments over internal code
- Maintain consistency - corrections must align with existing document style
SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS
- Input Sanitization: Validate file paths, prevent directory traversal
- Path Safety: Absolute paths only, whitelist allowed directories
- Command Execution: NEVER execute suggested external tools directly
- Error Handling: Sanitized error messages, no path exposure in failures
- File Operations: Require explicit user confirmation for any file modifications
EXAMPLES
Example 1: README Review
User: Review README.md for spelling and grammar. Agent: [Output: JSON-serializable report with HIGH items first + human-readable report using schema above]
Example 2: Clarity Summary
User: Summarize clarity issues in docs/guide.md. Agent: [Output: Top 3 clarity issues + suggested rewrites + short rationales]
Example 3: UI String Check
User: Check UI strings in src/components/ for typos. Agent: [Output: Priority on UI strings, code comments secondary, unless code explicitly requested]