No server. No API key. No network. Five agent skills over eight deterministic checkers. Same input, same findings, every time.

An LLM asked to proofread a text reads all 9,000 words into its context, forgets the middle, and invents a citation error on page 4. This doesn't. The checkers find the problems and hand over line, column, and a short excerpt; the agent judges and reports, and never reads the manuscript to find anything.

Install

Claude Code plugin

/plugin marketplace add domrice/prose-preflight
/plugin install prose

Any other harness (Cursor, Codex, Copilot, Gemini, Windsurf, …)

npx skills@latest add domrice/prose-preflight

Both resolve the package from PyPI — no repo on disk, no paths in SKILL.md. Needs uv; it supplies its own Python ≥ 3.11.

The five skills

/prose-init         once per project — writes the contract
/prose-preflight    check and report            ┐
/prose-deepread     read end to end and report  ┘ never edit
/prose-draft        write new prose             ┐
/prose-edit         apply findings you picked   ┘ only with your yes

• prose-init interviews you once — what you are writing, who reads it, which venue and style, which terms and acronyms — and writes prose-preflight.yaml. The other four read it.
• prose-preflight runs the checkers and diagnoses the result: what the counts mean, and a verdict on every severity: review finding — keep, soften, or cut, with a rewrite. A checker can see a hedge; only the agent can weigh it against your argument.
• prose-deepread is the opposite: it reads the manuscript end to end for what no regex reaches — claims the results do not support, terms used before they are defined, sections that do not deliver what their heading promises, passages that can go. Expensive, so it runs only when you ask for it by name.
• prose-draft is the only one that writes new text. Give it content — bullets, notes, numbers — and it proposes an outline, waits for your yes, drafts against the contract, and inserts under the heading you named. No contract, no draft; no content, only questions.
• prose-edit closes the loop: it applies the findings you picked out of a report, and only those. It reads the paragraph around each finding rather than the file, previews every change before touching disk, and marks what it changed. A review finding is edited only because you named it.

The contract

One file per project, prose-preflight.yaml, holds both halves of your setup. Run /prose-init once; it writes the file through the tool, so the YAML is serialized and its keys validated, never hand-typed. A prose-preflight.yaml in the working directory is picked up automatically.

The contract: block is agent-facing — no checker reads it, but every report carries it, so the agent judging your hedges knows whether "may indicate" is right for your journal. The checks: block is the deterministic half.

contract:
  document: conference paper
  audience: graphics researchers, non-specialist in differentiable rendering
  venue: SIGGRAPH — ACM house style, numbered citations
  voice: first person plural, past tense for methods, active where possible
  format: tex # md | tex | txt

checks:
  terminology:
    terms:
      ray tracing: [raytracing, ray-tracing]
      signed distance field: [SDF, signed-distance field]
  sentence_length:
    max_words: 32
  structure:
    required_sections:
      [Abstract, Introduction, Related Work, Method, Results, Conclusion, References]
  units:
    disabled_rules: [range_dash] # if your venue insists on hyphens

Keep only what you change; the rest falls back to defaults. Lists are replaced, not appended, and unknown keys are reported on stderr, so a typo never fails silently.

Two lists ship empty, because a wrong entry costs a false positive on every run: terminology.terms and structure.required_sections. Fill them in and those checks switch on.

Everything a document convention needs lives in YAML. If a new convention would need a code change, that's a bug in the checker.

Checks

review is not a quieter warning. It is the line between what a script can decide and what it cannot: whether your evidence carries your claim. Nothing marked review is ever auto-applied, by the tool or the agent.

Code, math, verbatim blocks, and LaTeX command sequences are blanked before any regex runs — character-for-character, so every offset stays a true source position. Your equations are not prose and are not judged as such.

The full report lands in PREFLIGHT_<file>.md, one per document; only a capped summary goes through the agent's context. That split is the whole point.

Vale

Vale powers grammar and style and is pinned as a dependency — no brew install, no manual step. The binary is fetched once on first run and cached; after that, runs are offline. If that download is blocked (air-gapped, proxy, locked-down CI), the run emits one vale.unavailable warning and the other seven checkers still report. Vale is never a hard prerequisite; install it yourself and it's picked up from PATH.

Vale has no LaTeX reader, so a .tex file is handed to it as masked prose — commands, preamble, math, and verbatim already blanked, line for line — and the alerts still carry true source positions.

Develop

git clone https://github.com/domrice/prose-preflight && cd prose-preflight
uv sync && uv run pytest

Every checker has a fixture pair in tests/fixtures/: an intentionally flawed document and the exact set of (check, line) pairs it must produce. Pinning positions is deliberate — false positives cost more here than misses, since each one burns agent tokens and spends trust in the report.

Adding a checker is one module exposing check(doc, rule) -> list[Finding] plus one line in the registry. If it also needs a change to the runner, the design was wrong.

License

MIT