Grammar and Clarity Review Without Changing Claims

Outcome

Language-quality findings

Returns grammar issues, spelling issues, punctuation issues, unclear phrasing, sentence-flow problems, terminology inconsistencies, and claim-preservation risks.

Use case

Meaning-preserving writing review

Use when text needs proofreading and clarity review, but factual claims, scope, terminology, and meaning must remain unchanged.

Output

Revision-safe review

Produces issue-level findings, minimal suggested corrections, clarity improvements, claim-change risks, and a confidence score.

When to use this prompt

Use this prompt to improve readability and correctness while preserving the original claims, scope, terminology, and meaning of the supplied text.

Use it when

The text needs grammar, clarity, or flow review

Use it when a draft needs grammar correction, spelling correction, punctuation review, clearer phrasing, sentence-flow review, paragraph-flow review, or terminology consistency checks.

Do not use it when

The task requires fact-checking, citation review, or rewriting

Use a fact-checking, citation-review, or rewrite workflow when the main task is verifying claims, checking sources, or producing a revised version.

Inputs required

Provide the text to review and any constraints that define what must be preserved. The prompt should not infer missing context, add claims, or rewrite beyond the requested review scope.

Text to review

The draft, section, paragraph, article excerpt, post, report, or documentation text that needs grammar and clarity review.

Preservation constraints

Any claims, terminology, wording, audience constraints, style requirements, or sections that must not be changed.

Output preference

Whether the user wants findings only, suggested edits, a before/after table, or a minimal corrected version.

Copy-ready prompt

Copy the prompt and replace the MATERIALS block with the text and preservation constraints.

Run a grammar and clarity review without changing claims.

TASK:
Review the supplied text for:
- grammar issues
- spelling issues
- punctuation issues
- unclear phrasing
- awkward sentence structure
- weak paragraph flow
- terminology inconsistency
- ambiguity
- readability issues
- places where a suggested edit may change the original claim

REVIEW SCOPE:
Focus on language quality and clarity.
Preserve the original meaning, claims, scope, terminology, and any stated intent supplied by the user.
Do not fact-check claims unless the user explicitly asks for fact-checking.
Do not add new claims, examples, citations, evidence, caveats, or interpretations.
Do not rewrite the full text unless the user explicitly asks for a rewritten version.

PRESERVATION RULES:
- Do not change the meaning of any claim.
- Do not strengthen or weaken claims.
- Do not add unsupported certainty.
- Do not remove important nuance.
- Do not infer missing context, audience, purpose, or author intent.
- If a sentence is unclear and cannot be safely corrected without changing meaning, mark it as AMBIGUOUS_SOURCE_TEXT.
- If a suggested edit may change the claim, mark it as CLAIM_CHANGE_RISK.
- If required context is missing to preserve meaning, write: INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE: <specific missing context>.

REVIEW CHECKS:
- Grammar
- Spelling
- Punctuation
- Sentence clarity
- Sentence length and complexity
- Paragraph flow
- Transitions
- Terminology consistency
- Undefined or ambiguous referents
- Awkward or redundant phrasing
- Claim-preservation risk

OUTPUT:
A) Review summary
B) Required corrections table
   - Location
   - Issue type
   - Current wording
   - Minimal suggested correction
   - Reason
C) Clarity improvements table
   - Location
   - Current wording
   - Suggested improvement
   - Claim-change risk: YES/NO
D) Terminology consistency issues
E) Ambiguous source text
F) Claim-change risks
G) Optional improvements
H) Missing context
I) Confidence

MATERIALS:
"""
Replace this block with:
- the text to review
- audience or publication context, if relevant
- style constraints, if relevant
- terminology that must be preserved
- whether output should be findings only, suggested edits, before/after table, or minimal corrected version
"""

ChatGPT Projects, GPTs, Skills, files/sources, Custom Instructions, Memory, and runtime prompts. Open mapping → Claude Projects, Project Instructions, Project Knowledge, Skills, and runtime chat input. Open mapping → Gemini Gems, Gem instructions, Knowledge files, Memory, Connected Apps, AI Studio, Gemini API, Files API, File Search, and Vertex AI. Open mapping →

Use these related controls when the text also requires technical register, no-fabrication discipline, or reusable output structure.

No simulation / no fabrication

Use this component when the review must not invent missing context, author intent, claims, sources, or unsupported corrections.

Open component →

Objective technical register

Use this component when the review output must stay professional, objective, technical, and structured.

Open component →

Structured copy/paste-ready output

Use this component when review findings must be easy to reuse in documentation, comments, or revision notes.

Open component →

Grammar and clarity review without changing claims

When to use this prompt

Inputs required

Copy-ready prompt

Use this as a runtime writing-review prompt