AI Prompts for Claude for Editing

Analyze this sample of writing and extract a style guide from it: [PASTE 500-1000 WORDS OF WRITING YOU WANT TO MATCH IN STYLE]. Identify and document: (1) average sentence length and variation patterns, (2) paragraph length norms, (3) punctuation conventions (Oxford comma, em dash vs. parentheses, colon usage), (4) vocabulary register (formal, conversational, technical), (5) use of active vs. passive voice, (6) treatment of numbers, dates, and abbreviations, (7) any distinctive stylistic signatures (characteristic sentence openings, repeated structural patterns). This style guide will be used to keep future editing consistent with the established voice.

I need help editing this document: [DESCRIBE THE DOCUMENT TYPE AND LENGTH]. Before editing, help me specify what type of editing it needs: (1) Proofreading: catching spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors only, (2) Copyediting: correcting errors plus improving sentence-level clarity and consistency, (3) Line editing: improving the prose at the sentence and paragraph level for flow, rhythm, and impact, (4) Substantive/developmental editing: improving structure, argument, and content at a higher level. Based on [DESCRIBE YOUR GOALS AND CURRENT DRAFT QUALITY], recommend which type of editing this document needs and what the priority should be. Then provide the edit at that level.

Review this document and identify all instances of these global issues: [PASTE YOUR DOCUMENT]. Find and flag every instance of: (1) passive voice where active voice is stronger, (2) weak verbs replaced by "to be" + adjective ("was disappointing" vs. "disappointed"), (3) nominalization (turning verbs into nouns: "make a decision" vs. "decide"), (4) redundant phrases ("completely finished," "true facts," "past history"), (5) filler phrases ("it is important to note that," "in order to," "the fact that"), (6) sentences over 35 words that should be broken up. Provide a list of specific instances with line references and suggested replacements.

Edit this text to match this tone specification: [PASTE TEXT TO EDIT]. Target tone: [DESCRIBE: E.G., "PROFESSIONAL BUT APPROACHABLE, LIKE A RESPECTED COLLEAGUE RATHER THAN A FORMAL AUTHORITY," OR "AUTHORITATIVE AND DIRECT WITH NO HEDGING," OR "WARM AND CONVERSATIONAL BUT NOT CASUAL"]. For each paragraph, identify: (1) where the current tone misses the target and why, (2) the specific edits that would correct it (specific word substitutions, sentence structure changes, changes to formality markers), (3) any phrases that undermine the credibility or approachability the tone requires. Provide the edited version alongside a summary of the patterns you corrected.

Improve the readability of this text for [DESCRIBE TARGET READER: GENERAL PUBLIC, PROFESSIONALS IN A SPECIFIC FIELD, EXECUTIVES, STUDENTS]: [PASTE TEXT]. Without changing the meaning, edit to: (1) reduce average sentence length toward 20 words, (2) convert any technical jargon to plain language equivalents (with a glossary of what you replaced), (3) break dense paragraphs into shorter ones with clear topic sentences, (4) replace any abstract nouns with concrete examples, (5) use direct address ("you") where appropriate. Provide the revised text and a Flesch-Kincaid readability score estimate for before and after.

Copyedit this paragraph for maximum clarity and precision: [PASTE PARAGRAPH]. For each sentence that needs improvement: (1) quote the original, (2) provide the edited version, (3) briefly explain the change (removed redundancy, clarified ambiguous pronoun, tightened construction). Do not change the meaning or the author's voice , only improve clarity and precision. Flag any sentence where you are uncertain about the author's intended meaning and need clarification before editing.

Proofread this text for grammar, spelling, punctuation, and mechanics errors: [PASTE TEXT]. Use [AMERICAN/BRITISH] English conventions. Flag every error with: (1) the original text, (2) the correct version, (3) the rule being applied (comma splice, subject-verb agreement, misplaced modifier, etc.). Organize by error type so I can see patterns. Also flag any instances that are technically correct but stylistically awkward. Do not make stylistic changes unless requested , this is proofreading only.

Find and fix every ambiguous or imprecise statement in this text: [PASTE TEXT]. Flag: (1) ambiguous pronouns (unclear what "it," "they," or "this" refers to), (2) dangling or misplaced modifiers, (3) statements that could be read two ways, (4) imprecise quantifiers ("many," "some," "often") where the context calls for specificity, (5) claims presented as facts that are actually opinions or estimates. For each instance: quote the original, explain the ambiguity, and provide the corrected version. Precision is especially important because this document will be used for [DESCRIBE CONTEXT].

Edit this document for terminological consistency: [PASTE DOCUMENT]. The document uses these key terms: [LIST THE TERMS YOU WANT TO BE CONSISTENT]. Flag every instance where: (1) the same concept is called different things in different places, (2) the same term is used for different concepts, (3) capitalization of key terms is inconsistent, (4) abbreviations are used before being defined or are defined inconsistently, (5) hyphenation of compound terms is inconsistent. Provide a standardized terminology guide for this document that I can use going forward.

Edit the paragraph structure of this text: [PASTE TEXT]. For each paragraph, assess: (1) does it have a clear topic sentence that states what the paragraph is about, (2) does every sentence in the paragraph relate to and support the topic sentence, (3) is the paragraph the right length (not too long and dense, not too short and incomplete), (4) does it end with a transition or conclusion that connects to the next paragraph. Identify the 3 most structurally weak paragraphs, explain the problem with each, and provide the rewritten version.

Edit this passage to improve the rhythm and flow of the sentences: [PASTE PASSAGE]. Currently the writing feels [MONOTONOUS/CHOPPY/BREATHLESS/DRAGGY , DESCRIBE THE PROBLEM]. Edit to: (1) vary sentence length and structure deliberately (short sentences for impact, longer ones for context and detail), (2) avoid the same sentence structure repeated more than twice in a row, (3) use punctuation to control pacing (semicolons for a brief pause, periods for a full stop, dashes for an em-dash of energy , if appropriate for this style), (4) end strong paragraphs with the strongest word in the final position. Show the edited version and analyze the rhythm pattern of both the original and the edit.

Increase the energy and momentum of this writing: [PASTE PASSAGE]. The writing currently feels flat because: [DESCRIBE: TOO MANY PASSIVE CONSTRUCTIONS, TOO MUCH HEDGING, SENTENCES THAT DEFLATE AT THE END, ABSTRACT LANGUAGE THAT DISTANCES THE READER]. Specifically: (1) replace every passive construction with an active one unless the passive is deliberately chosen, (2) replace every weak verb-plus-adverb with a single strong verb, (3) move the most important information to the end of each sentence (the stress position), (4) cut the first 3 words of any sentence that begins with "It is important to..." or "There are..." Provide before and after versions.

Improve the transitions in this text: [PASTE TEXT]. Strong transitions do more than signal logical relationship , they pull the reader forward. For each transition between paragraphs and major sections: (1) identify whether the current transition is clear, implied, or missing, (2) write a transition that creates genuine momentum (not just "Additionally..." or "Furthermore..."), (3) where possible, use the last word or idea of one paragraph to echo the opening of the next, creating a chain that makes the reading feel effortless. Transitions should be invisible to the reader; they should notice the flow, not the mechanism.

Cut this text by 20-30% without losing any essential information or the author's voice: [PASTE TEXT]. Rules: (1) cut every word that does not add meaning, (2) cut or compress any example that makes the same point as another example, (3) cut any sentence that does not advance the reader's understanding, (4) compress any multi-sentence explanation that can be made in one, (5) cut any opener that could be deleted and leave the text stronger. Provide the cut version and a note on the most significant cuts and why they improved the text. Target word count: [CURRENT COUNT] → [TARGET COUNT].

Strengthen the opening and closing sentences of each paragraph in this text: [PASTE TEXT]. Opening sentences should: state the paragraph's argument immediately, create forward momentum, and be specific enough to be interesting. Closing sentences should: land the paragraph's point definitively, leave the reader with something to hold onto, and set up the next paragraph without an explicit "in conclusion" or transition announcement. For each paragraph, provide: the current opening and closing, and the improved versions with a brief explanation of what changed.

Analyze the structure of this piece: [PASTE DOCUMENT OR DETAILED OUTLINE]. Assess: (1) does the opening establish what this piece is about, who it is for, and why it matters quickly enough, (2) is the main argument or narrative organized in the most logical and compelling sequence, (3) are there any sections that should come earlier or later, (4) are there any gaps where the reader needs information you have not provided, (5) does the ending deliver on the promise of the opening. Provide a structural diagnosis with specific recommendations for reorganization if needed.

Critique the argument made in this piece: [PASTE DOCUMENT]. Identify: (1) the central claim (is it stated clearly and early?), (2) the evidence used to support it (is it specific, credible, and sufficient?), (3) any logical fallacies or reasoning gaps, (4) any claims that are asserted without evidence, (5) any counterarguments that are not addressed and should be, (6) whether the conclusion follows from the evidence or reaches further than the evidence warrants. Write a 300-word editorial note as if from a developmental editor or journal reviewer.

Read this piece as a typical target reader , [DESCRIBE WHO THE TARGET READER IS] , and provide a reader experience critique: [PASTE DOCUMENT]. At each major section, note: (1) what question a reader of this piece would have at this point, (2) whether that question is answered satisfactorily, (3) where a reader's attention might flag and why, (4) what assumptions the writer makes about what the reader already knows or cares about, (5) what the reader walks away with at the end. Provide specific suggestions for the 3 changes that would most improve the reader experience.

Improve the headlines and subheadings in this document: [PASTE DOCUMENT WITH CURRENT HEADINGS]. Strong headings: (1) inform the reader what they will find in this section (not just label the topic), (2) use consistent grammatical form across the document, (3) create a narrative arc when read in sequence, (4) are specific enough to be useful to a reader scanning the document. For each heading, provide the current version and 2-3 improved alternatives. Also assess whether any sections need subheadings that do not currently have them, and whether any subheadings could be eliminated.

Check this document for completeness: [PASTE DOCUMENT]. It is meant to accomplish: [DESCRIBE THE PURPOSE AND THE READER'S NEEDS]. Identify: (1) any information the reader needs that is missing, (2) any question the document raises but does not answer, (3) any promise made in the introduction or headings that is not delivered, (4) any technical term used without definition that the target reader may not know, (5) any call to action, next step, or conclusion that is unclear or missing. Present as a checklist of gaps with a priority rating (critical vs. nice to have).