# Scientific Rewrite

> Source-faithful structural rewrite route for existing Chinese or Chinese-dominant scientific/technical material when users ask to reorganize it into clearer Chinese while preserving facts, numbers, formulas, citations, comparisons, conditions, limitations, paths, and exact details.

- Skill: `yuukias/scientific-rewrite` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 3 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add yuukias/scientific-rewrite`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/yuukias/scientific-rewrite/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- License: MIT-compatible local synthesis; architecture baseline from revie
- Author: YuukiAS (https://skillmd.com/u/yuukias)
- Updated: 2026-09-21
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/yuukias/scientific-rewrite

---

# Scientific Rewrite

This is the heavy Chinese rewrite route inside `writing-style`. Use it when an
ordinary user provides existing Chinese or Chinese-dominant scientific/technical
material and asks to reorganize, restructure, or rewrite it into clearer Chinese
while preserving exact scientific details. The user does not need to name this
skill or any internal route.

The routing signal is the combination of all three conditions:

- existing Chinese or Chinese-dominant scientific/technical source material;
- a request for reorganization, structural rewrite, or document-level rewrite,
  not only local polishing;
- explicit preservation pressure on facts, numbers, formulas, citations,
  comparisons, conditions, limitations, paths, configuration keys, commands, or
  other exact details.

Do not wait for the user to say `scientific-rewrite`, `Meaning Map`,
`Reader Plan`, `REALIZE_MEANING`, or another internal term. Those are
implementation details, not user-facing activation words.

The ordinary user should not need to name this skill. A natural request such as
"把这份较长科研报告重新组织成自然中文，数字、公式、引用、比较条件和限制都不能丢" should be routed here by the installed
`writing-style` plugin when the source is long enough to need document-level
meaning planning.

## Boundaries

- Host Codex owns semantic extraction, planning, realization, audit, repair,
  assembly, and final prose. Do not call paid OpenAI/Terra generation in these
  stages.
- `rewrite_support.py` is mechanical only. It validates schemas, source-anchor
  coverage, ordinary route selection, exact items, source/repair/assembly
  leakage, and receipts. It does not generate reader-facing prose or certify
  naturalness.
- `chinese-prose` owns `REALIZE_MEANING`: turning an already-fixed semantic
  packet into natural Chinese.
- `writing-fidelity` owns `STRUCTURAL_REWRITE`: preserving the content/evidence
  graph while allowing source headings, paragraph boundaries, and section order
  to change unless the user explicitly protects them.
- Existing `scientific-prose` remains the English scientific prose route.

## Heavy Path

```text
raw source
-> ordinary writing-style route selection
-> source anchors
-> Meaning Map
-> Reader Plan
-> REALIZE_MEANING
-> assembly
-> exact + semantic fidelity audit
-> structured targeted repair when needed
-> re-assembly when needed
-> re-verification
-> final candidate
```

`REALIZE_MEANING` uses soft isolation. The host model may have seen the raw
source earlier in the same task, but the formal realization packet must not
re-present raw source paragraphs, source excerpts, source quotations, source
tails/previews, source-shaped templates, prior rejected candidates, manual
reference output, Latin-span inventories, QA ledgers, or validator fields as
drafting input.

Do not create nested `codex exec`, a second model runtime, or another isolation
system only to claim that the writer forgot the source.

## Route Selection

The installed `writing-style` entrypoint must select this heavy route from an
ordinary user request. The prompt may ask to rewrite a longer Chinese scientific
or technical document naturally while preserving numbers, formulas, citations,
comparisons, conditions, and limitations. The prompt must not name
`scientific-rewrite`, `Meaning Map`, `Reader Plan`, `REALIZE_MEANING`, internal
stage names, or validator names.

Record route evidence in `route_selection.json` before validating the stage
package:

- `schema`: `SCIENTIFIC_REWRITE_ROUTE_SELECTION_V1`;
- `selector_owner`: `writing-style`;
- `selected_route`: `scientific-rewrite`;
- `forced_route`: `false`;
- `ordinary_user_prompt`: `true`;
- `prompt_sha256` and `source_sha256`;
- `prompt_internal_terms`: empty list.

A forced subskill invocation is diagnostic only. It cannot satisfy the ordinary
production route gate.

## Meaning Map

The Meaning Map is meaning-centric and source-auditable. It must include:

- stable source anchors with hashes;
- meanings with `meaning_id`, `kind`, `normalized_meaning`, source anchors, and
  exact items where needed;
- `source_context_items` for source packaging, workflow debris, navigation
  wrappers, alternate-language labels, or other source authority that is useful
  for judging relevance but should not become reader-facing content;
- relations when one meaning depends on, qualifies, compares with, or limits
  another;
- exact items whose literal identity matters;
- bidirectional coverage: every substantive source anchor has meaning
  ownership or explicit source-context exclusion, and every meaning has source
  authority.

Missing or malformed semantic extraction is a failure/repair condition. The
helper must never fill `normalized_meaning` from source excerpts or continue
with a source-copy fallback.

## Reader Plan

The Reader Plan owns reader-question order, semantic dependencies, bundle
ownership, and information shape. It must not contain raw source prose, source
excerpts, target rewrite sentences, Latin-span QA classifications, seed
templates, or validator language.

If the Meaning Map contains source-context exclusions, the Reader Plan must
list their IDs in `excluded_source_context_item_ids`. This makes reader-facing
omission explicit and auditable instead of silently dropping source spans.

Mechanical size limits may only request `NEEDS_SEMANTIC_SPLIT`; they must not
become the production heavy planner. Fixed `4 paragraphs / ~2800 chars`
chunking is not a valid final heavy-route boundary.

The Reader Plan is also the reader-disposition contract. Every retained,
relocated, structured, or omitted obligation needs a source role and a reader
reason. Use the existing plan/bundle structure; do not create a parallel
persistent ledger. Valid disposition families are:

- `CORE_INLINE` for central claims, definitions, mechanisms, and evidence;
- `SUPPORT_INLINE` for needed conditions, caveats, comparisons, and context;
- `STRUCTURED` for formulas, tables, citations, legitimate code, commands,
  APIs, config, or identifiers that must appear as structured objects;
- `RELOCATE` for needed reproducibility details that belong in a technical note
  or appendix rather than the main argument;
- `SOURCE_FUTURE_WORK` for source-author future work, limitations, or proposals
  whose subject, tense, completion state, and uncertainty must be preserved;
- `DROP_WRAPPER` for navigation, export UI, license debris, duplicated links, or
  source packaging that is not part of the reader-facing content;
- `DROP_IRRELEVANT_TRACE` for task, review, branch, commit, CI, cache, or
  workflow traces that only describe how a prior artifact was produced.

Citation identity is not the same as raw citation markup. If the source comes
from a wiki, scraped web page, exported Markdown, or HTML document, templates
such as `{{sfnp|...}}`, `{{harvtxt|...}}`, `{{cite ...}}`, `<ref>...</ref>`,
`<references/>`, and similar source-site citation syntax must be classified as
wrapper syntax unless the user explicitly asks for source markup preservation.
Keep the cited authors, years, titles, or source note when they support a
reader-facing claim, but realize them as normal prose, a bracketed citation, or
a short references/source-note section. Do not emit the raw template or tag in a
standalone candidate.

`SOURCE_FUTURE_WORK` must carry modality information: who owns the future work,
whether it is done or proposed, its temporal status, and its epistemic status.
Do not turn source-author plans or limitations into current Executor actions or
completed findings.

## Realization Packet

A `REALIZE_MEANING` packet may contain:

- audience and register;
- bundle purpose and reader question;
- relevant meaning and relation records;
- required exact item identities/formulas;
- neighboring bundle purposes/dependencies;
- information shape;
- optional structured repair instruction.

It must not contain raw source paragraphs, source quotes, source excerpts,
source tails/previews, old candidates, manual reference text, Latin-span
inventories, seed rewrite templates, or self-audit ledgers as drafting input.

Formula rendering is a production obligation, not a cosmetic choice. When a
source formula is reader-facing, realize it as renderable Markdown/LaTeX math
(`$...$` or `$$...$$`) with nearby Chinese explanation. Do not place formulas
inside fenced code blocks, inline code spans, `text` fences, quote blocks,
screenshots, or token inventories merely to preserve characters. A
formula-like code block or inline-code span is a candidate-representation
failure even when the literal symbols are present. Use normal LaTeX math
notation for operators and spacing, such as `\log`, `\sin`, `\cos`, `\exp`,
`\min`, `\max`, `\arg\min`, `\arg\max`, `\Pr`, and `\mathbb{E}`. Big-O and
complexity expressions such as `O(n log n)`, `O(N log N)`, and `(N/2) log_2 N`
should become `$O(n \log n)$`, `$O(N \log N)$`, and
`$(N/2) \log_2 N$`, not inline code and not `$O(n log n)$`, because the latter
renders `log` as ordinary adjacent variables.

The packet must explicitly preserve modality. It must tell the writer to keep
completion status, subject/voice, temporal status, and epistemic status from the
Meaning Map and Reader Plan. This is especially important for future work,
limitations, negative results, author proposals, conditional statements, and
unverified observations.

## Assembly

Assembly may consume Reader Plan, realized bundles, meaning ownership, bundle
order/dependencies, required exact objects, and terminology established by the
realized bundles. It may add headings/transitions that add no scientific claim,
remove duplicate definitions while preserving ownership, and place formulas,
tables, or lists near their explanation.

Assembly must not receive the raw source as drafting material and must not
become a second whole-document source-conditioned writer.

Assembly owns whole-document finish. Before accepting a final candidate, it must
state the document purpose, reader entry, section-order rationale, transition
plan, voice constraints, and technical-detail placement. The candidate should
read as a standalone scientific or technical document, not a memo about a source
file, task branch, review process, or next execution step.

## Repair

The semantic auditor may read raw source. A repair packet sent back to
`REALIZE_MEANING` may only contain structured corrections:

- bundle id;
- affected meaning IDs;
- finding type;
- required semantic correction;
- required exact-item IDs;
- allowed semantic operations.

It must not contain source prose, source quotations, source sentences, or a
target rewrite sentence. If the Meaning Map is wrong, repair the Meaning Map
first and update the Reader Plan before re-realization.

The semantic audit must check disposition as well as proposition fidelity. It
must verify that each source obligation is preserved, summarized, relocated, or
omitted according to the Reader Plan, and that no critical disposition finding
remains unresolved. This prevents two opposite failures: preserving every
internal trace for "fidelity", or deleting legitimate code, formulas,
reproducibility details, citations, limitations, or future work for
"cleanliness".

## Exact Items

An ordinary Latin technical word is not exact-protected merely because it is
Latin script. Exact preservation is for formulas, citations, machine-facing
tokens, paths, commands, config keys, code identifiers, formal algorithm/model
names, datasets, metrics, packages, APIs, and user-explicit protected spans.
Ordinary reasoning, comparison, qualification, and transition language remains
eligible for natural Chinese realization.

For citations, exact preservation protects citation identity and attribution,
not source-platform syntax. Wiki templates, HTML reference tags, scraped
footnote wrappers, and citation parser artifacts are not reader-facing exact
items. Convert them to readable citation wording or a compact reference/source
note, or omit them when the Reader Plan classifies them only as wrapper
metadata.

## Reader-Facing Relevance Filter

Do not treat repository workflow metadata as reader-facing scientific meaning
merely because it is exact. The heavy route must distinguish scientific
reproduction details from internal execution traces.

Keep exact script, configuration, command, data, model, metric, citation, or
formula identities when they support the scientific/technical argument or
reproducibility contract. For example, a source statement that an experiment
uses `scripts/run_fedfisher.sh` and `configs/mm_fedfisher.yaml` may remain in a
short reproducibility paragraph.

Formula identity means preserving the mathematical relationship in reader-facing
math, not preserving the source's plain-text container. If the source expresses
DFT, loss functions, matrix equations, Big-O/complexity statements, or other
formula-like content in plain text, inline code, or a wiki-style block, convert
the relationship to renderable math and explain the symbols. Use code fences and
inline code only for real code, commands, APIs, configuration, or machine-facing
tokens, not mathematical notation.

Reader-facing exact verification checks exact items required by meanings or
Reader Plan bundles. Exact items that appear only inside excluded
`source_context_items` are not required in the final candidate, but an
inline-critical exact item must not be hidden this way. If a method name, model,
dataset, API, citation, metric, path, command, or formula is needed to
understand or reproduce the technical point, keep it reader-facing.

Do not put these in the main reader-facing candidate unless the user explicitly
asks for an audit log or repository handoff:

- Reviewed Handoff state, Gate numbers, Planner/Reviewer/Executor status, CI
  status, test command summaries, or Text Review workflow state;
- Git commit hashes, branch names, GitHub Actions run ids, worktree state, or
  release checklist status;
- task-local paths such as `results/<task_key>/*`, `exports/private/*`,
  `automation/reviewed_handoff/*`, `.local-runtime/*`, plugin cache paths, or
  `CURRENT.json` / `RESULT.md` / `FINAL_REPORT.md`;
- statements such as "this round is ready to close", "waiting for external
  planner review", or "the result has passed independent planner review" when
  they are process state rather than scientific content.
- webpage/export wrappers such as language-link counts, archive ids,
  alternate-language labels, navigation labels, or scraped UI noise when they do
  not help a standalone reader understand the technical content.
- raw citation wrappers from source platforms, including wiki templates and HTML
  reference tags, unless the user explicitly requested markup/source comparison.
  Preserve the citation's useful identity, not the platform syntax.

If the source mixes a scientific report with workflow/audit metadata, use the
metadata only to avoid false claims and to understand artifact authority. The
final candidate should present the scientific content first and move necessary
technical reproduction details to a short appendix. Irrelevant workflow traces
should be omitted, not "preserved" as prose.

## Source-Process Framing

A standalone reader-facing scientific or technical rewrite must not explain the
text as a rewrite of a source document. The final candidate should state the
technical object, notation, result, limitation, attribution, or comparison
directly.

Do not write source-process frames such as:

- "原文指出";
- "原文同时提到";
- "原文在……中";
- "根据给定材料";
- "源文";
- "这里保留原文".

The semantic audit must classify these as reader-facing frame failures when the
task is a normal standalone rewrite. Repair the affected block by stating the
technical content itself: name the method, notation, experiment, theorem,
claim, caveat, or cited author directly. Do not simply replace "原文" with a
synonym such as "材料" or "上文".

This rule is contextual, not a phrase blacklist. It does not remove legitimate
scientific attribution. For example, "Smith et al. [12] reported ..." or
"文献 [12] 报道 ..." should remain when the source attributes a claim to those
authors or that paper. It also does not apply when the user explicitly asks for
source comparison, editing commentary, peer review, provenance, or audit output.

## Completion Standard

This route can claim process completion only when the stage package validates:

- ordinary `writing-style` route selection chose `scientific-rewrite`;
- no raw-source drafting leakage into realization, repair, or assembly;
- complete source-anchor/meaning ownership;
- explicit source-context exclusion for non-reader packaging metadata;
- valid Reader Plan bundle ownership;
- reader-facing exact items preserved;
- formulas and complexity expressions are renderable math, not fenced `text`,
  code blocks, or inline code spans;
- citations are reader-facing citation text, bibliography/source notes, or
  intentional omissions according to the Reader Plan; raw wiki/HTML citation
  markup such as `{{...}}`, `<ref>...</ref>`, and `<references/>` is absent from
  standalone candidates unless explicitly requested by the user;
- reader-facing candidate has no internal workflow / CI / commit / task-path
  leakage;
- standalone reader-facing candidate has no source-process framing such as
  referring to "原文", "源文", or "给定材料" instead of stating technical
  content directly;
- semantic audit has no unresolved critical findings;
- no paid generation dependency;
- no private plaintext committed;
- final candidate hash binds the receipt.

Validate with either current or compatibility command spelling:

```bash
python3 skills/writing/core/scientific-rewrite/scripts/rewrite_support.py validate-host-stage \
  --source SOURCE.md \
  --stage-dir stage_packets \
  --prompt USER_PROMPT.md \
  --receipt stage_packets/stage_receipt.json
```

This is not product-quality PASS. Human artifact acceptance and the task's
Reviewed Handoff gates still own reader-facing quality.