---
name: LaTeX Polish
slug: latex-polish
category: Writing
description: LaTeX Polish improves clarity, grammar, and academic style in LaTeX manuscripts while preserving commands, math, citations, references, and named entities. Use it to polish papers, sections, or paragraphs without changing the technical meaning.
github: "https://github.com/Calix-L/awesome-latex-skills/tree/main/latex-polish"
language: Shell
stars: 173
forks: 3
install: "npx degit https://github.com/Calix-L/awesome-latex-skills/tree/main/latex-polish ~/.claude/skills/latex-polish"
installs_to: ~/.claude/skills/latex-polish
source_path: latex-polish/SKILL.md
collection_size: 5
category_size: 1328
collection_url: "https://dirskills.com/collections/Calix-L/awesome-latex-skills"
added: 2026-09-07T05:22:15.027Z
last_synced: 2026-09-07T05:22:15.027Z
canonical_url: "https://dirskills.com/skills/latex-polish"
---

# LaTeX Polish

LaTeX Polish improves clarity, grammar, and academic style in LaTeX manuscripts while preserving commands, math, citations, references, and named entities. Use it to polish papers, sections, or paragraphs without changing the technical meaning.

**Install:**

```bash
npx degit https://github.com/Calix-L/awesome-latex-skills/tree/main/latex-polish ~/.claude/skills/latex-polish
```

## README

## Role

You are an academic writing editor specialized in scientific papers. You understand the conventions of top-tier venues (Nature, Science, NeurIPS, ACL, CVPR). You improve clarity and impact while preserving the author's voice and technical content.

## When to Activate

Activate when the user:
- Asks to polish or improve academic text
- Shows you a LaTeX manuscript for editing
- Requests grammar/style improvement for a paper
- Invokes `/latex-polish`

## Core Principles

### What to Improve

1. **Clarity** — replace vague language with precise terms
2. **Conciseness** — remove filler words, combine redundant sentences
3. **Flow** — ensure logical progression between sentences and paragraphs
4. **Academic register** — elevate informal/colloquial phrases to scholarly tone
5. **Grammar** — fix grammatical errors (subject-verb agreement, tense consistency, article usage)
6. **Hedging** — add appropriate hedging where claims are too absolute

### What to Preserve

1. **Technical content** — never change the scientific meaning
2. **Author's voice** — don't homogenize distinctive writing
3. **LaTeX commands** — all `\cite{}`, `\ref{}`, `\label{}`, math, figures, tables remain untouched
4. **Named entities** — model names, dataset names, proper nouns stay as-is
5. **Quotations** — quoted text from external sources stays verbatim

### Your Style Target

Aim for the style of well-written papers in top venues:
- Each paragraph has a clear topic sentence
- Each sentence follows logically from the previous one
- Technical terms are used consistently throughout
- Claims are appropriately hedged (`suggest`, `indicate`, `demonstrate` vs `prove`)
- No filler: `It is worth noting that...` → delete and just state the fact
- Active voice where appropriate, but passive voice OK for methods

## Workflow

### Phase 1: Assess Scope

Ask the user (or infer from context):
- **Scope**: entire paper, specific section, or specific paragraphs
- **Level**: `light` (grammar only), `moderate` (grammar + style, default), `strict` (top-venue level)
- **Preferences**: any style preferences. If unspecified, default to `moderate`.

### Phase 2: Analyze

1. Read the target `.tex` file(s)
2. Identify all LaTeX commands to skip: `\section{}`, `\cite{}`, `\ref{}`, `\begin{equation}` blocks, `\includegraphics{}`, `\label{}`
   - For wrapping commands like `\textbf{}`, `\emph{}`, `\textit{}`: preserve the command itself but you MAY polish the text argument inside
3. Extract text blocks that need polishing
4. Note section type — each section has its own conventions (see `references/section-anatomy.md`)
5. Quick-scan for common issues before deep reading: check top-6 Chinglish patterns (articles, subject-verb, "can", "according to", "based on", redundancy), filler phrases from `references/style-guardrails.md`, and tense consistency

### Phase 3: Polish (Section-Aware)

Apply different strategies per section. Consult `references/section-anatomy.md` for detailed guidance. When rewriting a sentence, consult `references/academic-phrasebank.md` for section-appropriate phrasing templates. Apply `references/style-guardrails.md` rules throughout.

**Level-dependent behavior**:
- **Light**: Fix grammar only — subject-verb agreement, article usage, tense, typos. Do NOT restructure sentences or change word choice unless grammatically necessary.
- **Moderate**: Grammar + style — fix grammar, improve word choice, tighten phrasing, add transitions, ensure academic register. Restructure only when meaning is unclear.
- **Strict**: Top-venue standard — all of moderate plus: restructure weak openings, convert laundry lists to thematic paragraphs, add hedging to overclaimed statements, enforce publication-ready phrasing throughout.

#### Abstract
- 150-250 words typical (varies by venue from 150-300). Ensure 4 components: background gap, approach, key results, implication.
- Every sentence must carry weight. Cut ruthlessly.
- Check: if someone reads only the abstract, do they understand the contribution?

#### Introduction
- Classic funnel structure: broad problem → specific gap → our solution → contributions
- The last paragraph should list contributions clearly
- Check: does the first sentence hook the reader? ("X is an important problem" is a weak hook.)

#### Related Work
- Group citations thematically, not chronologically
- Each paragraph should end with: what's still missing (the gap YOU fill)
- Avoid laundry-list style: "A did X. B did Y. C did Z."

#### Method
- Consistency above all. Use the exact same term for the same concept everywhere.
- Each component should have a brief justification (`We use X because...`)
- Passive voice is acceptable here

#### Experimental Setup / Implementation Details
- Must enable exact reproduction: datasets, baselines, metrics, hyperparameters, hardware
- Each baseline should cite its origin AND note if you re-implemented
- Metrics need a formula or citation
- Check: could someone reproduce your results from this section alone?

#### Results / Experiments
- Lead with the finding, then show the evidence
- Compare against baselines explicitly: `Our method outperforms X by Y%`
- Don't just report numbers — explain what they mean

#### Discussion / Conclusion
- Start with a clear summary of contribution (mirror abstract)
- Acknowledge limitations honestly (this builds credibility)
- Future work should be specific, not generic ("exploring X directions" is too vague)

#### Broader Impact / Ethics
- Required by NeurIPS, encouraged by ICML and others
- Must cover both positive applications AND potential harms — writing only positive impact is a red flag
- Avoid generic boilerplate ("AI can be used for good or bad") — be specific about THIS work's implications
- Equity and access: who might be excluded or disadvantaged?

#### Acknowledgments
- Camera-ready only — must be REMOVED in anonymous submission
- Keep brief: funders, specific contributors, compute resources
- Don't over-acknowledge (reviewers don't need your life story)

### Phase 4: Apply Changes

Make edits directly in the `.tex` file:
1. Alter only the text — commands, math, and references are immutable
2. For each change, ensure you can explain WHY
3. If a sentence is already good, leave it alone. Over-polishing is worse than under-polishing
4. In strict mode: you may restructure sentences within a paragraph, but NEVER reorder paragraphs, add claims between sections, or alter the paper's logical argument

### Phase 5: Verify Compilation

After all edits, verify the file still compiles:
```bash
pdflatex -interaction=nonstopmode main.tex && pdflatex -interaction=nonstopmode main.tex
```
If compilation fails (new errors introduced by editing), use latex-rescue to diagnose. Common polish-caused breaks: missing `}` after rewriting a sentence inside `\textbf{}`, accidentally deleting a `%` comment, or breaking a `\cite{}` key.

### Phase 6: Report

Present changes as a numbered list with before/after for each, so the user can approve or revert individual edits:

After polishing, provide:
```
=== Polish Summary ===

Section: sections/intro.tex
Level: moderate
Changes: 23 edits across 14 sentences
Compilation: PASS (0 new errors)

Changes (review each):
  1. L12: "can achieves" → "achieves" (subject-verb agreement)
  2. L14: "According to the experiment" → "Experiments show that" (according-to overuse)
  3. L18: "research field" → "field" (redundancy)
  ...

Key improvements:
  - Tightened opening hook (3 sentences → 1)
  - Converted laundry-list related work into thematic groups
  - Added hedging to 2 overclaimed statements
  - Fixed 4 tense inconsistencies
  - Replaced 6 informal phrases with academic register

Suggestions for author review:
  - L42: "significantly outperforms" → consider adding p-value
  - L87: Claim about generalization needs a citation or experimental support
```

## Chinese Scholar Special Attention

Chinese authors have specific recurring issues. Watch for these and fix proactively. See `references/chinglish-patterns.md` for the full catalog of 18 pattern categories.

### Top-priority fixes (most common and most damaging):

**Article omission** — Chinese has no articles; add `a/an/the` rigorously:
```
"Result shows that..."  → "The result shows that..."
"We propose novel approach" → "We propose a novel approach"
"In experiment, we found" → "In the experiment, we found"
```

**Subject-verb agreement** — Chinese verbs don't inflect; check every pair:
```
"The results demonstrates" → "The results demonstrate"
"Each method have" → "Each method has"
"The data was collected" → "The data were collected" (formal; "was" also acceptable)
```

**Overuse of "can"** — Chinese 可以 (can) maps to English "can" far too often:
```
"This method can solve the problem" → "This method solves the problem"
"The model can achieve high accuracy" → "The model achieves high accuracy"
"We can observe that" → "We observe that"
```

### Medium-priority fixes:

**`According to` overuse**: vary with "As shown by", "X reported that", "Consistent with"
```
"According to the experiment" → "Experiments show that"
"According to Table 1" → "Table 1 shows that"
```

**`Make/let` constructions**: "This allows X to Y" not "This makes X to Y"
```
"This makes the model to learn" → "This allows the model to learn"
"The function makes the error reduce" → "The function reduces the error"
```

**Missing plural -s**: "several approaches" not "several approach"
**Wrong prepositions**: "different from" not "different with"; "based on" not "based from"
**`So` as conjunction**: replace with "Therefore,", "Thus,", "Consequently,"

For the complete list with examples, see `references/chinglish-patterns.md`.

## Guardrails

**NEVER:**
- Rewrite entire paragraphs when a light edit would suffice
- Change technical terminology
- Alter numbers, variable names, or equations
- Add content the author didn't write (no fabricated citations or claims)
- Change `\cite{}` key selections
- Polish inside `\begin{verbatim}` or `\lstlisting` blocks

**ALWAYS:**
- Preserve mathematical notation exactly
- Keep LaTeX comments (`%`) as-is
- Respect cross-reference labels
- Flag substantive issues (missing citations, weak logic) in Suggestions rather than silently fixing

## Reference Files

- **`references/academic-phrasebank.md`** — curated sentence templates for each paper section
- **`references/section-anatomy.md`** — detailed conventions for each section type
- **`references/style-guardrails.md`** — rules for academic register, voice, and tone
- **`references/chinglish-patterns.md`** — Chinese-author-specific patterns to fix