Sentence-level writing evaluation using Orwell's 6 rules, Williams' clarity diagnostics, readability metrics, and persuasion frameworks (AIDA/PAS). Evaluates individual sentences and paragraphs for clarity, concision, voice, and structure. Use as part of writing-review or independently when checking prose quality. Not for document-level structure (use writing-docs-eval).
Evaluate prose quality sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph. Three layers: Orwell for concision and word choice, Williams for clarity and structure, readability metrics for audience fit.
From "Politics and the English Language" (1946). These are revision heuristics — apply them to every sentence, flag violations, suggest rewrites.
A dead metaphor is a figure of speech so overused that the original image has been lost. The writer uses it as a ready-made phrase rather than choosing words for their meaning.
Examples of dead metaphors to flag:
The test: if the image the metaphor describes has nothing to do with the point being made, it's dead. Replace with plain language.
Not a violation: original, vivid metaphors chosen for their specific image. Orwell's rule targets lazy reuse, not metaphor itself.
If a short word conveys the same meaning, use it.
| Long | Short |
|---|---|
| utilize | use |
| facilitate | help |
| implement | do, build |
| approximately | about |
| functionality | feature |
| methodology | method |
| in order to | to |
| leverage (verb) | use |
| prior to | before |
| subsequent to | after |
| commence | start |
| terminate | end |
| endeavor | try |
| regarding | about |
| demonstrate | show |
The test: read the long word aloud. Would a person actually say it in conversation? If not, the short word is better.
If a sentence works without a word, the word shouldn't be there.
Common cuttable phrases:
| Wordy | Cut to |
|---|---|
| it is important to note that | (delete entirely) |
| the fact that | (delete or restructure) |
| in terms of | (restructure) |
| at this point in time | now |
| due to the fact that | because |
| in the event that | if |
| for the purpose of | to, for |
| a large number of | many |
| is able to | can |
| has the ability to | can |
| make use of | use |
| on a daily basis | daily |
| at the present time | now |
| in close proximity to | near |
| it should be noted that | (delete) |
The test: read the sentence with the suspect word or phrase removed. Does the meaning change? If not, cut it.
Active: The agent writes tests. Passive: Tests are written by the agent.
Active voice is shorter, clearer, and names who does what. Passive hides the actor and adds words.
How to spot passive: look for forms of "to be" (is, was, were, been, being) followed by a past participle (usually -ed or -en). "The file was created" is passive. "The command creates the file" is active.
When passive is acceptable:
If there's an everyday English equivalent, use it. This doesn't mean avoiding all technical terms — it means not using technical terms when plain ones work.
| Jargon | Everyday |
|---|---|
| performant | fast |
| scalable | handles growth |
| leverage | use |
| paradigm | model, approach |
| synergy | working together |
| optimize | improve |
| deliverable | result, output |
| stakeholder | (name the actual group) |
| operationalize | put into practice |
| ideate | think, brainstorm |
Exception: domain-specific terms that have no simpler equivalent. "Worktree" in git, "assertion" in testing, "frontmatter" in markdown — these are precise terms that plain language can't replace without losing meaning. Use them, but define them at first use.
This is the escape valve. If following rules 1-5 produces an awkward, unnatural, or ugly sentence, break the rule. The purpose of the rules is better writing, not mechanical compliance.
The test: read the revised sentence aloud. If it sounds worse than the original, keep the original.
From "Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace" by Joseph Williams. The central insight: unclear writing buries characters in prepositional phrases and turns actions into nouns.
For each sentence, check: do the first 7-8 words name the main character (who or what the sentence is about) doing the main action?
Clear: "The guard rejects edits to source files." (Character = guard, action = rejects, both in the first 7 words)
Unclear: "The rejection of source file edits is performed by the guard system when the phase is restrictive." (Character buried in "by the guard system," action turned into a noun "rejection," real verb is the meaningless "is performed")
Nominalizations are verbs or adjectives turned into nouns, usually ending in -tion, -ment, -ness, -ity, -ence, -ance.
| Nominalization | Verb it hides |
|---|---|
| investigation | investigate |
| implementation | implement |
| establishment | establish |
| development | develop |
| utilization | use |
| completion | complete |
| determination | determine |
| improvement | improve |
| assessment | assess |
| configuration | configure |
When a nominalization appears as the subject of a sentence, the real actor is usually missing and the real action is hidden.
Fix: find the hidden verb, find the hidden actor, make the actor the subject and the verb the main verb.
"The implementation of the feature was completed by the team." → "The team implemented the feature."
Sentences should begin with information the reader already knows (old) and end with information that's new. This creates cohesion — each sentence connects to the previous one.
Good flow: "Missouri runs tests in sandboxed temp directories. These directories are created fresh for each test path and deleted afterward."
(Second sentence starts with "these directories" — old info from the first sentence — and ends with new info about lifecycle.)
Bad flow: "Fresh creation and deletion after each test path characterizes the sandboxed temp directories. Missouri runs tests in them."
(Second sentence starts with new info and ends with old info. The reader has to hold the new info in memory while waiting for context.)
A definite noun phrase ("the guard," "the registry," "the scrubber") presupposes the reader already knows what it refers to. When writing, the referent may be in the LLM's context window but absent from the document. The reader encounters "the guard" and has to guess what guard.
The test: for every "the [noun]" that isn't a common English word (the server, the file), check whether that noun was introduced earlier in the document. If not, either introduce it first or use an indefinite form ("a guard that...") at first mention.
This is distinct from the old-new principle. Old-new is about sentence ordering within a paragraph. This is about document-level