Free Editing & Proofreading Prompts

Run a structural edit on this draft: [PASTE]. Don't touch sentences yet. Output: 1) sections to merge, 2) sections to move (with new order), 3) sections to cut, 4) sections to add, 5) the new outline after edits. End with the rationale for each major change and the section I'd defend even though it looks weak.

Line edit this draft for clarity, not voice: [PASTE]. Mark up: 1) sentences that double-up the same idea, 2) qualifier creep ("often", "perhaps", "kind of"), 3) passive constructions that should be active, 4) sentences over 30 words. Output the edited version and the 3 patterns I should watch for.

Find the darlings in this draft: [PASTE]. These are sentences I love that don't serve the piece. For each: 1) the darling, 2) why I love it, 3) why it doesn't earn its place, 4) the cleaner version or the cut. End with the 1 darling I should keep despite the rule.

Cut this draft by 30% with no meaning loss: [PASTE]. Categories of cuts allowed: redundancy, hedging, throat-clearing intros, unnecessary qualifiers, weak transitions, repeated examples. Output the cut version and the 3 sentences I almost cut but kept and why.

Here are the section transitions in my draft: [PASTE]. Rewrite the weak ones so each pulls the reader to the next section. Avoid "However," "Moreover," and "In conclusion". Output: 1) the rewritten transitions, 2) the logical thread each captures, 3) the transition that needs the section above it rethought.

My current title and subheads: [PASTE]. The piece's argument: [PASTE]. Edit: 1) does the title promise specifically, 2) do subheads narrate a thread when read alone, 3) which subhead is filler. Output: the rewritten title and subheads, and the order they tell when read top-to-bottom.

Proofread this draft: [PASTE]. Look for: typos, missing words, doubled words, inconsistent tense, inconsistent capitalization, dangling modifiers, hyphenation drift, oxford comma drift, number-style drift. Output the diff list (line + fix). End with the 2 issues that look like writing problems but are formatting problems.

Audit this draft for consistency: [PASTE]. Surface: 1) name spellings used inconsistently, 2) brand or product terms used in 2+ ways, 3) capitalization drift on proper nouns, 4) voice drift (first vs second person), 5) tense drift. Output the inconsistencies and the canonical version to pick for each.

Run a sensitivity read on this draft: [PASTE]. Look for: outdated terms, gendered defaults, ability-related language to update, jargon that excludes outsiders, stereotypes presented as universals. For each finding: 1) the phrase, 2) the issue, 3) 2-3 alternative phrasings, 4) the one I'd recommend. End with the patterns I should watch in future drafts.

My draft: [PASTE]. Format for skim-ability without dumbing it down. Output: 1) where to add subheads, 2) where to use bold strategically (max 5 instances), 3) where to break long paragraphs, 4) where a list would replace prose, 5) where a callout pulls the eye. End with the formatting choice that most reduces drop-off.

Read this draft as a fact-checker: [PASTE]. Flag every claim that needs verification. For each: 1) the claim, 2) the type of verification needed, 3) the easiest source to confirm, 4) the fallback if I can't confirm (soften, cut, attribute). End with the 3 claims to verify before publishing.

After heavy edits, my voice is thinner: [PASTE before/after]. Recalibrate. Output: 1) the 5 voice markers from the original, 2) sentences in the edited version that are too neutral, 3) targeted rewrites that bring back voice without re-adding the cut content. End with the rule for next time.

Find every passive construction in this draft: [PASTE]. For each: 1) the passive sentence, 2) the active rewrite, 3) whether passive is correct here (sometimes it is - usually it isn't). Output the edited version. End with the rule for when passive is the right choice.

My intro: [PASTE]. My conclusion: [PASTE]. Check that they mirror without being repetitive. Output: 1) what the intro promised, 2) what the conclusion delivered, 3) the gap if any, 4) the rewritten conclusion that closes the loop, 5) one image or phrase from the intro that should reappear in the conclusion.

I'll read this aloud: [PASTE]. Mark every sentence that's awkward to say. For each: 1) the rhythm issue (too long, clause-heavy, vowel pile-up), 2) the rewrite that flows, 3) whether the awkwardness is intentional (sometimes it is). End with the one paragraph to read aloud daily until it sings.