IAIE-PhysicalAI/expression_skill

Language Expression

Goals and Principles

Complete writing and editing in Chinese. Select information with purpose around the core question the article aims to answer, expand on it to clarify the issue, and organize content in a logic that the reader can easily follow.

Idea-driven, information-supported. Ideas determine what needs to be expressed; logic determines how to organize and express the information.

Place the selection and organization of information at the center of the work. First clarify the idea, then select the necessary materials, and continue to supplement as needed during explanation or argumentation. Ideas must be tested against facts; when evidence does not support them, adjust the judgment and its scope, rather than selecting only materials that fit a predetermined conclusion.

The following seven steps describe the writing responsibilities and must be executed in the fixed groups below. How steps are merged is determined by this skill; the executor must not merge phases on their own. Specific tools and the number of tool calls per phase are not fixed. When the user only requests partial modifications, narrow the scope of work while still preserving phase boundaries; when a clear outline or reliable materials already exist, utilize them directly without recreating.

Constraints Throughout the Process

Facts and Original Intent

• Factual content such as data, specific cases, citations, personal experiences, and research conclusions must be based on evidence. For information not provided as input, check the source and verify; do not treat memory, search summaries, or plausible-sounding claims as verified facts.
• When verifying, confirm that the source actually supports the current statement, paying attention to time, subject, statistical scope, and applicable conditions. Prioritize searching for original materials or credible primary sources.
• Input materials may also contain errors. Point out contradictions or suspicious points when discovered; do not automatically endorse them, nor arbitrarily guess the facts.
• When verification is impossible, delete, clearly annotate, or ask the user to supplement based on the importance of the content; do not fabricate sources or claim to have completed verification that was not actually performed. Preserve the correspondence between sources and supported information, presenting it according to the style and delivery requirements.
• Hypothetical examples with clear labels can be used to aid understanding, but they must not be packaged as real events or used to prove actual effects or frequency.
• When polishing, protect the author's stance, conclusions, numbers, terminology, causal relationships, conditions, and degrees of certainty. When substantive adjustments to these are found necessary, explain the reasons; when evidence is insufficient, do not decide new conclusions on behalf of the author.
• Writing based on fixed materials adheres to material boundaries. Point out gaps when discovered; gather only within the scope allowed by the user for supplementary external materials.

Chinese Expression

• Regardless of context, prioritize accurate, familiar vocabulary and reduce unnecessary abstract expressions. Retain necessary technical terms; whether to explain them depends on the reader's background, but do not replace terms with words of different meanings for the sake of simplicity.
• Information density should be based on the effective information the reader can understand. Delete redundancy, but also supplement explanations necessary for comprehension; do not make fewer words the sole goal.
• Abstract judgments need to be concretized into specific objects, actions, processes, conditions, or results based on the expression task. For example, "optimize processes, improve efficiency" does not yet specify what has changed; if the existing materials lack these details, point out the gap, do not fabricate to fill it.
• Delete repetitive viewpoints, vague evaluations, and useless padding.
• Preserve limitations that express the boundaries of evidence. "Possible," "in this sample," "not yet verified" cannot be deleted simply because they seem weak; "may improve" cannot be polished into "significantly improves."
• Decide whether to use transitional words and which kind based on content and logical analysis. Do not write casual relationships or progressive relationships (e.g., "therefore," "but," "not only... but also...," "not... but...") just because facts are related, appear sequentially, or have similar wording. Do not piece together superficially opposing but actually unrelated examples as positive-negative contrasts. Check whether relationships such as "therefore," "but," "not only... but also...," "not... but..." are supported by real relations; when a relationship does not hold or is unclear, correct the content or remove the connection, without using word swaps to mask the problem.
• Rhetorical intensity should match the facts. Ordinary changes do not need to be elevated to major breakthroughs; do not add unsupported meaning, emotion, or stance.
• Do not establish mechanical taboo word lists, nor uniformly judge any sentence pattern, list, heading, or general-specific-general structure as problematic. Judge based on their actual function, avoiding forced point counts, equal paragraph lengths, and unnecessary summaries and elevations.
• Determine the depth of explanation and presentation method based on the target reader's existing knowledge and purpose. Easy acceptance does not mean pandering; do not hide important risks, unfavorable facts, or necessary conditions.
• Do not simulate human writing through intentional errors, irrelevant colloquialisms, or fabricated personal experiences, nor promise to pass any AI text detection.

Positive Statements and Negative Explanations

• Paragraphs should primarily use positive statements, directly stating first what the author claims, what the subject is, and what the basis or reason is. Do not first detour by excluding possible misunderstandings before finally presenting the real viewpoint.
• Do not repeatedly use defensive or negative explanations such as "not... but...," "not... nor...," "this does not mean..." around the same point. Do not preempt objections sentence by sentence, nor enumerate misunderstandings that do not appear in the text and readers would not typically produce.
• Add negative explanations only when necessary to rule out common misunderstandings, delineate the boundaries of application, or distinguish similar concepts. First fully state the positive content, then centrally and concisely explain what needs to be excluded; consolidate negative explanations where possible, rather than dispersing them throughout the paragraphs.
• Negative explanations cannot replace positive explanations. If, after deleting the negative sentences, the reader still does not know what the author actually claims, supplement a specific positive statement.
• Factual boundaries, evidence limitations, and necessary qualifications are not defensive rhetoric to be deleted. Whether to retain them depends on whether they improve accuracy, not on whether the sentence surface contains a negative word.

Document Iteration Rules

Fixed Phase Grouping

Execution Phase	Corresponding Steps	Work Completed in This Phase	Phase End Condition
Preparation	Steps 1, 2, and 3 merged	Confirm core question and idea, understand materials and conduct necessary preliminary gathering, clarify heading hierarchy and detail level, save outline	Outline is actually saved, clearly showing coordination and subordination relationships, key content and detailed expansion requirements, sufficient to guide supplementary search
Supplement Information per Outline	Step 4 executed separately	Read outline, identify information needed for argumentation and explanation item by item, conduct supplementary search and verification, enrich existing information pool	Key viewpoints and available evidence are matched, supplementary materials and sources are recorded, unresolved gaps are clearly identified
Content Drafting	Step 5 executed separately	Determine paragraph cores, select and organize information, supplement evidence as needed, write into working document	Content draft is actually saved, or existing body text has completed the necessary content adjustments in this phase
Content Validation and Repair	Step 6 executed separately	Re-read saved body text, check overall and sentence-by-sentence logic, explanation and support of core information, perform targeted rollback repair and re-check	Content validation passes; unresolved critical gaps must be clearly explained
Personalized Style Adjustment	Step 7 executed separately	Based on the current draft that has passed content validation, adjust the author's characteristic tone, rhythm, and expression habits	Necessary style modifications are saved, and post-modification review is completed

Steps 1 through 3 are completed consecutively in the preparation phase, without requiring step-by-step delivery or waiting for user confirmation. Step 2 completes preliminary understanding and gathering; after the outline is saved, Step 4 must be executed separately to check and supplement information again based on specific viewpoints and detail requirements. Subsequent rollbacks are still possible as needed; it is not necessary to gather everything in the preparation phase.

Steps 4 and 5 must be separated: first complete targeted supplementary search and material organization based on the saved outline, then begin content drafting; gaps discovered during drafting can be returned to Step 4 to supplement. Steps 5 and 6 must be separated: first complete and save the content draft, ending drafting, then perform a read operation to obtain the saved body text and begin validation. Steps 6 and 7 must also be separated: only after content validation passes can specialized personalized style adjustment begin. Do not complete content drafting, post-hoc validation, and style finalization in the same full-text generation, then save all at once.

Within Step 6, problem identification, corresponding repair, and writing back can be completed consecutively; the re-check must be based on the content re-read after writing back. Rollback only processes the step that caused the problem, without re-executing unrelated work. After rollback is complete, return to Step 6; do not skip validation and go directly into style adjustment.

After Step 7 ends, read the final content with changes, and check if facts, original intent, and logic have been altered. Substantive changes go back to Step 6 for validation; mere wording adjustments complete the relevant review and then deliver. This is a check after modification, not a requirement to restart the full writing process.

The above grouping applies to full-text writing and partial polishing. Short tasks reduce the workload of each phase but do not merge information supplementation, content drafting, content validation, and style adjustment. The preparation phase must have a saved outline that meets the current task; reuse an existing outline that meets requirements. The information supplementation phase must check the evidence needs in the outline; when sufficient evidence already exists, it can be reused without repeated search. Other phases can pass after checking if no modification is needed, without creating changes.

Continuous Editing of the Same Working Document

For new writing, first create an editable working document; for polishing, start from the existing body text, using the editing target specified by the user, or create a working copy when in-place editing is not specified. Subsequent adjustments all update the same working document; do not create another draft for each phase.

Use available file or document editing tools in the current environment to actually save phase results. If reading/writing to a document is not possible, explain the limitation, provide the body text that can continue to be edited, and do not claim to have completed saving, re-reading, or document modification.

The outline must be explicitly written to a location from which it can be continuously read and modified. By default, save it in a companion outline file alongside the body text, e.g., "article_name.outline.md"; if a designated outline file or independent workspace within the document already exists, continue using it and clearly distinguish it from the body text. After saving, briefly inform the user of the outline's location, for review and subsequent iteration. Do not only list the outline in a reply, nor keep it only in internal planning.

The body text always iterates on the same working document; the companion outline is retained as a basis for continuous use. When later changes occur to the main thread, heading hierarchy, expansion order, or focus/detail, update and save the outline simultaneously, then modify the body text accordingly. Necessary sources and pending issues can be briefly recorded outside the body text. Do not force the establishment of a database, version directory, or complete process report.

Advance by Problem, Write Modifications Promptly

Complete the preparation phase according to the fixed groups, save the outline, then first execute the information supplementation phase before entering content drafting; information is still continuously supplemented as needed for expression.

Around the paragraph core, after selecting and organizing information, actually write the content into the working document. Based on the explanatory task, decide whether each round processes one paragraph, a set of related paragraphs, a chapter, or the overall structure. Each round should have a clear purpose; do not force paragraph-by-paragraph calls, nor fragment the work to increase counts.

Subsequent modifications should be based on the current content of the working document, prioritizing locating and modifying problematic parts. When full-text main thread adjustment is needed, overall reorganization is possible, but still retain information and sources that remain valid.

After Saving the Draft, Re-read and Validate

Must adhere to the phase boundary between content drafting and post-hoc validation: first save the content draft, then read the saved body text, check according to Step 6, and perform targeted corrections. Do not claim to have completed drafting, validation, and revision during a single full-text generation.

Validation should cover the overall relationships of the current draft and the sentence-by-sentence logic within paragraphs. For long texts, chapters can be read sequentially while checking the connections between chapters and the full-text main thread. When problems are found, go back to the corresponding step to handle them, write the corrections back to the same document, then re-read the affected content for review.

Only merging Steps 1 through 3 according to the fixed groups is allowed, as well as continuing problem diagnosis and repair within Step 6. Do not merge other phases on your own, nor omit the re-read validation because the task is short, the content is familiar, or checks were done during drafting. Multiple drafts are not required; all phases continuously use the same working document.

Determine Completion by Whether the Problem is Solved

After content validation passes, separately enter the personalized style phase, handling expression characteristics that need adjustment on the current document. When validation finds no issues or the style is already appropriate, the corresponding phase passes after checking, without creating changes just to demonstrate multiple rounds of revision. Basic language requirements such as accurate, familiar vocabulary and removing redundancy still run through all phases and are not postponed to the style phase.

After modification, re-check according to the scope of impact; when full-text main thread, core conclusions, or paragraph order change, check the overall structure. When necessary materials are missing or key judgments await author confirmation, clearly explain the gaps and impact, complete what can be determined, and do not repeatedly generate baseless alternative drafts.

Workflow

1. Identify/Confirm Core Question and Idea

Clarify from the user request, original manuscript, and context:

• The specific question the article needs to answer.
• The main judgment, observation, or explanation the author wishes to express.
• What the author wants the reader to understand, or what judgment the reader should make based on it.
• Target reader, purpose of use, and the original intent and writing boundaries that must be preserved.

Distinguish between broad topics and questions that can guide writing. For example, "automated review" is a topic; "which review stages are suitable for automation, and what is the basis for judgment" is sufficient to guide subsequent choices.

Prioritize using existing information. Only confirm when there is substantive ambiguity in the intent or boundaries affecting the writing direction; do not require user approval at each stage. The core idea can be clarified and corrected later, but during polishing, do not arbitrarily establish a new stance for the author.

2. Understand Existing Materials and Gather Relevant Information as Needed

Around the current idea, understand existing evidence and necessary information gaps; do not require a single thorough gathering.

• Open-ended writing: conduct necessary preliminary understanding and establish basic awareness; simultaneously pay attention to related limitations, counterexamples, and disagreements. Continue gathering later as needed for specific explanations or arguments.
• Polishing or fixed-material writing: fully understand the input, extract relevant viewpoints, facts, examples, and conditions; note relationships and contradictions among different materials; do not arbitrarily expand the scope of materials.

Material records can be markings on the original text, brief notes, or excerpts with sources; they only need to be easy to use, trace back to sources, and distinguish facts from judgments. Do not force the establishment of a complete information pool, material list, or database.

When existing information is sufficient to support the next step, continue advancing. Gathering and verification continue as writing requires; when tools are unavailable or key evidence is missing, clearly explain, without filling with seemingly credible content.

3. Sort Out and Save an Outline, Clarify Levels and Focus/Detail

The outline is the common basis for subsequent drafting, modification, and validation. Before the preparation phase ends, a concise outline with clear levels and detail arrangements must be saved.

First sort out the relationships among content, then determine the heading structure:

• Headings that revolve around the same issue, have repetitive content, or are suitable for continuous explanation should be merged; avoid splitting the same meaning into multiple headings.
• Headings at the same level represent parallel content at the same level; they should use a consistent division perspective; during writing, they can still be expanded gradually according to the order of understanding.
• Sub-headings represent subordinate expansions of the parent heading. If causes, components, specific methods, conditions, or examples serve a parent issue, they should be placed under that heading, not laid out flat alongside the parent issue.
• Subordinate issues requiring independent expansion use sub-headings to clarify the hierarchy of paragraph groups; items needing only brief supplementary mention can be listed as bullet points under their parent heading. Headings, sub-headings, and bullet points all should have clear attribution.
• Do not list all information points in parallel, nor impose heading levels for the sake of completeness. Simple content can have only one level; complex content is layered according to real relationships.

Specify detail levels clearly in the outline; do not leave key judgments to the drafting stage:

• Indicate which parts are key, which are necessary background or secondary supplements, and mark as "expand in detail" or "briefly cover."
• For each key part, briefly write the specific issues that must be explained, the processes that need explanation, or the judgments that need support. Simply marking "key" is insufficient to guide writing.
• Core content requiring detailed introduction must have sufficient explanation and evidence; background, transitions, and secondary content should have a clearly controlled expansion scope. Details without evidence can be marked as to be supplemented; information is still gathered as needed.

Structure is determined by content; detail is determined by focus. Do not default to using "background—current situation—problems—suggestions—outlook," nor arrange the text according to the order materials were gathered.

This step does not require planning every sentence, every example, or all connecting details. The outline for partial polishing can be very short, covering only the core content, relationships, and details within the scope of the request, without expanding into a full-text reconstruction. The outline can be adjusted as understanding and writing evolve; each adjustment should be saved, so that subsequent work always has a clear basis.

4. Supplement Search per Outline, Enrich Information Needed for Viewpoints

Read the saved outline and existing materials; around each key viewpoint, issues requiring detailed explanation, and necessary explanations, check what additional information is needed. This step is executed separately after the outline is determined, to provide a more adequate basis for subsequent information selection and organization.

• Match the viewpoints or explanatory tasks in the outline with existing evidence, identifying missing facts, data, cases, concept explanations, process information, applicable conditions, and related information.
• Conduct another search and verification based on these specific needs, focusing on supplementing materials that explain "what it is, why, how it happens, under what conditions it holds"; simultaneously look for counterexamples and evidence that may limit or correct judgments.
• For open-ended writing and tasks allowing supplementary external materials, conduct targeted external searches. For fixed-material writing, search and extract input materials within the allowed scope; when gaps still exist, clearly point them out without arbitrarily expanding material sources.
• Record useful supplementary materials, sources, applicable conditions, and their corresponding outline positions into existing material notes or the outline's material area, enriching the pool of selectable information. Do not require establishing a new database, nor include all gathered information in the body text.
• Directly reuse parts that already have sufficient evidence; for viewpoints still lacking support, mark the gap, and if necessary, return to Step 1 to clarify the judgment or Step 3 to revise the outline. When materials conflict with the original idea, handle them faithfully.

This phase aims to equip key viewpoints with necessary explanations and evidence, not to pursue quantity of data or a single thorough gathering. Before entering the drafting phase, it should be clear which information supports which viewpoints and what content still needs supplementation; when new expression needs arise later, continue returning to this step.

5. Determine Paragraph Core, Select and Organize Information

First, read the saved outline and the supplemented material records. Expand according to its heading levels and focus/detail arrangements. For each paragraph, clarify what needs to be expressed, then select the required information and organize the expression. Each paragraph must be able to answer:

1. What does this paragraph need to clarify, and what role does it play in the full text?
2. What information can help clarify it, and is it sufficient to explain or support the judgment?
3. How should this information be arranged so that the reader can gradually understand?

Select necessary facts, explanations, examples, comparisons, or reasoning according to the paragraph core. Relevance to the topic is not sufficient reason to retain information; judge its specific role in the current explanatory task. Content that the outline requires to be expanded in detail must be concretized into explanations and evidence, not just increase length; brief content maintains its necessary scope. When using headings in the body text, preserve the coordination and subordination relationships expressed in the outline.

Determine the expansion method based on understanding obstacles: clarify meaning if concepts are vague; supplement evidence if judgments lack support; explain steps or give reasonable examples if processes are hard to understand; make comparisons if things are easily confused; state conditions if conclusions have an applicable range. Expand only to the point where understanding and support for judgment are sufficient; do not require examples for every paragraph.

When organizing, let the preceding text provide the necessary foundation for the following text, and let the following text advance understanding. Parallel information can be presented in parallel; do not force causal connections; "interlocking" requires real succession and progression, not linking every sentence with transitional words.

Write the content organized in this round into the working document; then continue expanding or modifying based on the current draft. Do not postpone all editing to be completed at once in the final delivery.

When materials needed for a viewpoint are insufficient, return to Step 4 for supplementation as needed; when understanding or extraction of input materials is found to be incorrect, return to Step 2 for re-understanding; when the original idea cannot be established, return to Step 1 for clarification or correction; when the overall expansion direction is inappropriate, adjust and save the outline in Step 3, then check the affected evidence needs.

6. Validate Content and Logic; if Not Passed, Perform Targeted Rollback

First, read the saved current body text and outline, checking the actual expansion against the plan; do not rely solely on memory or plans from drafting time. Simultaneously check both overall and sentence-by-sentence relationships:

• Full text: whether it answers the core question, whether the focus is clear, and whether all parts together advance the main thread.
• Outline implementation: whether headings that should be merged are still split, whether sub-headings are subordinate to parent headings, and whether headings at the same level are at the same level; whether content that should be subordinate is laid out as parallel items.
• Focus and detail: whether issues that the outline requires to be introduced in detail are fully explained and supported; whether background and secondary content crowd out the focus; whether the current outline and body text are consistent.
• Paragraphs: whether each has a clear core, whether paragraphs connect logically to each other, and whether the level of detail matches the importance.
• Sentences: whether the information in each sentence connects smoothly with preceding and following sentences; whether there are jumps, repetitions, unclear references, or undefined relationships.
• Support: whether each sentence serves a role of explanation, evidence, condition, reasoning, or necessary transition; whether there is sufficient information and related information behind each sentence; whether the information together is sufficient to support the paragraph's viewpoint.
• Core information isolation: whether key concepts, judgments, data, or examples are only mentioned but not explained in terms of their meaning, cause, applicable conditions, or relationship to the current viewpoint; whether the reader needs to deduce the necessary understanding and argumentation links on their own.
• Reasoning: whether correlation is mistaken for causation, whether individual cases are generalized into universal conclusions, whether key premises are omitted, and whether the relationships claimed by transitional words are actually valid.
• Fidelity and evidence: whether unsupported information has been added, whether the original meaning, limitations, or degrees of certainty have been changed.

Smooth reading cannot substitute for logical validity. Do not only check transitions between paragraphs while ignoring the information relationships within each sentence.

When core information isolation is found, supplement the explanation and connections needed for understanding or argumentation. If existing information is sufficient but not clearly written, return to Step 5 for reorganization; if evidence or necessary background is missing, return to Step 4 for supplementation. Support can come from context or materials already introduced; it is not required that every sentence has an additional citation, example, or explanation, thus avoiding repetitive expansion.

When validation does not pass, roll back to the corresponding step where the problem originated:

Problem	Rollback Position
Core question, author's idea, or writing boundary unclear	Step 1: Identify/Confirm
Incorrect understanding of input materials, omission of existing information or conditions	Step 2: Understand and Gather
Main thread, focus, or overall expansion order unreasonable	Step 3: Outline and Focus
Missing information needed for viewpoint, insufficient evidence, unreliable source	Step 4: Supplement Search
Unclear paragraph core, improper information selection, problems with sentence-by-sentence organization or reasoning, or missing explanation and connection for existing core information	Step 5: Select and Organize

After rollback processing, actually write the corrections back to the same working document, then re-read the affected content for re-validation; continue targeted rollback as needed. When a local modification affects other parts, check related content together; do not mechanically redo the full text, nor use language polishing to mask content defects. When no problems are found, pass directly; do not create meaningless modifications.

If the problem depends on missing materials or author judgment, clearly point out the gap and the affected conclusions, and continue processing within the confirmable scope. Do not treat unresolved issues as if they have passed validation.

7. Confirm and Adjust Personalized Expression Style

On the basis of content and logic being sound, handle really individual expression characteristics. Basic accuracy, clarity, and redundancy removal should be implemented throughout the process.

Based on the original manuscript, reference text, or clear preferences, adjust tone, expression rhythm, sentence patterns, colloquialism level; preserve the author's distinctive and effective word choices and expression habits.

Direct, restrained, gentle, humorous, or sharp can all be valid; they should serve the actual needs of the author and reader. When style is insufficiently grounded, restrain modifications; do not arbitrarily create a new voice, nor uniformly convert all texts into a formal, smooth style.

Style adjustments directly modify the current document that has passed content validation, and save the changes; when existing expression is appropriate, retain it. Do not change facts, original intent, or established logic. When substantive modifications occur, re-execute Step 6 for validation.

Delivery Method and Completion Criteria

Deliver the final version already saved and validated in the working document according to the user request, or corresponding partial results. When the response needs to display the full text, it should be consistent with the final document; do not generate a new, unvalidated draft at the time of delivery.

The body text is delivered separately; the saved outline is retained as a companion file or workspace, with an accessible location provided; it does not need to be expanded again in the response. By default, do not attach complete process records, information tables, or validation reports; on user request, display necessary content. If there are unverified information affecting use, material gaps, or substantive issues requiring author decision, briefly explain outside the body text.

Clean up conversational replies, modification notes, placeholders, and unnecessary service offers in the delivered body text; comply with the required format.

Before completion, confirm that: the core question is explained, information selection is focused, key content is fully explained, sentence-by-sentence logic is smooth and supports viewpoints, facts and original intent are protected, expression is accurate and understandable while preserving the author's voice. Do not use "whether it looks like AI-generated" to replace these standards.