EDITING WORKFLOW KIT
Gaurav Tiwari
Companion guide: https://gauravtiwari.org/best-grammarly-alternatives/

Keep the original. Use one prompt for one job. Review every proposed edit.
Prompts guide a tool; they do not guarantee that it follows the instructions.
Do not submit material you are not permitted to share with the chosen service.

1. MINIMAL COPYEDIT

Copyedit the passage using American spelling. Correct only genuine grammar,
spelling and punctuation errors. Preserve voice, regional idiom, paragraph
order, contractions and meaning. Keep names, numbers, prices, dates,
quotations, citations, URLs, code and shortcodes unchanged. Preserve uncertainty
and scope, including may, might, some, usually and only. Add no facts.
Return the corrected passage, necessary corrections with reasons, and optional
style suggestions separately without applying them. Flag ambiguity.

PASSAGE: [Paste your text]

2. STRUCTURAL REVIEW

Reader: [Describe your reader]
Desired outcome: [What the reader should understand or do]
Identify unclear reasoning, repeated ideas, missing steps, weak comparisons
and unsupported conclusions. Separate writing problems from claims requiring
external verification. Do not invent sources or declare facts checked from
memory. Return up to 5 useful changes, each with exact passage, reader problem,
proposed change and reason. Do not rewrite the whole draft.

DRAFT: [Paste your draft]

3. VOICE-PRESERVING EDIT

The reference samples below are my own approved writing. Describe the relevant
sentence, vocabulary and formality patterns briefly. Suggest small changes to
the draft that follow those patterns while preserving facts and meaning.
Do not copy phrases, anecdotes or claims from the samples into the draft.
Do not add biographical details or make the prose deliberately imperfect.
Return proposed changes with reasons; leave my original intact.

APPROVED SAMPLES: [Paste your own writing]
DRAFT: [Paste the passage]

4. WORDPRESS-SAFE CHANGES

Review only the readable prose in this WordPress passage. Do not rewrite its
markup. Preserve block comments, block JSON, HTML tags, attributes, URLs,
IDs, code, shortcodes, [year] and [monthyear] exactly.
Return a list of exact original prose strings and suggested replacements.
Do not return a regenerated page. Flag any ambiguous boundary instead of
guessing. Each replacement must preserve the original claim and its qualifiers.

PASSAGE: [Paste the passage]

5. ACADEMIC PROOFREADING

Correct language only. Preserve the finding, uncertainty, negative results,
comparison groups, statistical notation, sample sizes, units, quotations and
citations. Never change association into causation. Do not invent references
or strengthen a conclusion. Explain corrections and flag wording whose meaning
cannot be determined. Separate optional style suggestions without applying them.

FIELD AND AUDIENCE: [Add context]
PASSAGE: [Paste permitted material]

6. BILINGUAL REVIEW

Review this Hindi-English passage for the intended audience below. Preserve
deliberate code-switching and regional idiom. Use [English variety] for English
spelling. Do not translate the full passage or normalize Hindi into English.
Keep names and quotations unchanged. Propose corrections with brief reasons,
and flag uncertain wording for a fluent reviewer. Do not apply uncertain edits.

AUDIENCE: [Describe who will read it]
PASSAGE: [Paste your text]

7. CLAIM EXTRACTION

Extract claims from this draft that need external verification. Return the
exact claim, what evidence would establish it, an appropriate primary-source
type, and any date, region, plan or scope condition. Do not mark a claim verified
from memory. Do not fabricate URLs. Distinguish the writer's recommendation
from a measurable product or factual claim.

DRAFT: [Paste your draft]

8. DICTATION CLEANUP

Clean up this dictated passage. Fix obvious transcription errors only when the
intended wording is clear. Add punctuation and paragraph breaks without
reorganizing the argument. Preserve spoken voice and meaningful repetition.
Flag uncertain names, numbers and technical terms rather than guessing.
Return a cleaned version and a short list of unresolved words to check against
the recording. Do not add facts or make the passage more promotional.

TRANSCRIPT: [Paste your text]

GRAMMAR-CHECKER EVALUATION WORKSHEET

Tool / plan:
Integration / application:
Language setting:
Prompt, if used:
Date:
Sample name:

Use constructed examples below alongside a representative draft of your own.
These are test inputs, not results attributed to a product.

Case 1: Genuine agreement error
Input: These plugin is useful.
Expected: Correct agreement, for example, This plugin is useful.

Case 2: Factual qualifiers
Input: The plugin may reduce database queries on some sites.
Expected: Preserve may and some. Add no speed claim.

Case 3: Technical tokens
Input: Check wp_options and https://example.com/docs/?mode=edit before updating.
Expected: Keep the identifier and URL exact.

Case 4: WordPress placeholders
Input: Compare writing tools in [year]. Updated offers use [monthyear].
Expected: Keep both placeholders literal; do not insert a date.

Case 5: Language variety
Input: A short passage in your usual English variety, with deliberate regional
idiom or Hindi-English switching if that is part of your work.
Expected: No unwanted translation or automatic removal of appropriate idiom.

Case 6: Deliberate voice
Input: I don't need another rewrite. I need to know why this paragraph is unclear.
Expected: Preserve contractions, emphasis and request for an explanation.

Case 7: Academic uncertainty
Input: The study found no significant difference between the groups.
Expected: Preserve the negative finding; do not infer equivalence or causation.

Case 8: Billing language
Input: The plan costs US$100 billed annually, displayed as US$8.33 per month.
Expected: Preserve the annual charge and distinguish the monthly equivalent.

For each case, record:
- Genuine errors corrected:
- Genuine errors missed:
- False positives:
- Meaning changes:
- Protected-token changes:
- Review time:
- Accept / reject / needs closer review:

Decision:
Does this improve your complete editing process enough to keep it?
What gap remains, and does another tool actually solve that gap?