Help us improve
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Detects unexpected tone or register shifts in writing, offers rewrite suggestions to restore consistent voice. Useful for multi-author drafts or branded content.
npx claudepluginhub ur-grue/autopunk-media-skills --plugin autopunk-media-skillsHow this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/autopunk-media-skills:tone-consistency-checkerThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Identifies passages where the tone or register shifts unexpectedly within a piece of writing, and explains how to bring the text back to a consistent voice.
Diagnoses and repairs tone drift across dimensions like formality, warmth, urgency, stance, and sentence rhythm. Useful for multi-author docs, long pieces, or source-assembled content with inconsistent voice.
Reviews multi-author texts for voice, terminology, tone, and formatting inconsistencies, with harmonization recommendations.
Reviews prose for communication issues that impede comprehension, applying minimal fixes and Microsoft Writing Style Guide principles. Useful for improving clarity in markdown, plain text, or text-heavy XML.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Identifies passages where the tone or register shifts unexpectedly within a piece of writing, and explains how to bring the text back to a consistent voice.
Required: The full text to be checked. Optional: A description of the intended tone (e.g., "authoritative but accessible, like a quality broadsheet feature"; "warm and conversational, like a podcast host talking to a friend"; "neutral and precise, broadcast news style"); the publication or format this is written for; any passages the writer considers the tonal benchmark — the parts they are happiest with.
A structured editorial report divided into two parts. Part one: a one-paragraph tonal profile of the piece as it stands — what register it occupies, where it is working well. Part two: a numbered list of flagged passages, each with the quoted text, a plain-language description of the tonal issue, and an alternative version that brings the passage into line. Closes with one overall recommendation (e.g., "anchor to the register of paragraphs 3–5, which best match the stated brief"). Tone of the report is direct and editorial — not apologetic. Length reflects the number of flags: a tonally clean text gets a brief confirmation plus the tonal profile.
Text to check:
Paragraph 1: The coastal flooding that swept through the delta region last month displaced more than 40,000 residents, overwhelming emergency shelters and exposing long-standing failures in the country's infrastructure planning.
Paragraph 2: Officials were, like, completely caught off guard — nobody had really thought this through, you know? The whole thing was kind of a mess from the start.
Paragraph 3: The government's emergency response unit deployed 1,200 personnel within 72 hours of the initial breach, prioritising evacuation of low-lying settlements identified as high-risk by the 2019 disaster preparedness review.
Paragraph 4: Here's the thing though: people are mad. Really mad. And honestly? You can't blame them. Years of broken promises, and now this.
Intended tone: Authoritative, neutral news feature — quality print journalism. Third-person throughout. The benchmark is paragraph 3, which the writer is confident about.
Tonal Profile At its best — paragraphs 1, 3, and 5 — this piece occupies a confident, authoritative news-feature register: precise, third-person, factually grounded, with formal but readable sentence structures. The vocabulary is appropriate for a quality print audience without being academic. This is the register to protect.
Flagged Passages
1. Paragraph 2 — Register collapse into casual speech
Quoted text:
"Officials were, like, completely caught off guard — nobody had really thought this through, you know? The whole thing was kind of a mess from the start."
Issue: This paragraph reads as informal spoken commentary, not print journalism. The markers "like," "you know," and "kind of a mess" belong to a conversational or opinion blog register. They undercut the authority established in paragraph 1.
Suggested revision:
Officials acknowledged that the scale of the flooding had not been anticipated. Internal communications seen by this publication indicate that contingency planning for a surge of this magnitude had not been updated since 2017.
Note: If the informal register is a deliberate structural choice — e.g., this paragraph represents a paraphrased source perspective — that should be signalled to the reader ("Critics described the response as…" or "Residents affected said…").
2. Paragraph 4 — Shift to first-person opinion
Quoted text:
"Here's the thing though: people are mad. Really mad. And honestly? You can't blame them. Years of broken promises, and now this."
Issue: This paragraph breaks from third-person reporting into direct editorial address ("Here's the thing," "honestly," "you can't blame them"). The emotional register — while defensible in a signed opinion column — contradicts the neutral news-feature framing of all other paragraphs. "And now this" is particularly informal and functions as a rhetorical aside rather than reported fact.
Suggested revision:
Anger among displaced residents is widespread and, according to community organisers, more intense than after any previous flood event in the region. Many point to a pattern of unfulfilled commitments from local and national government spanning more than a decade.
Overall Recommendation Use paragraphs 1, 3, and 5 as the tonal anchor throughout. Any passage that cannot be rewritten in the same register as paragraph 3 should be attributed to a named perspective (an official, a resident, an assessor) rather than presented as the narrator's voice. Two revisions required before this piece is tonally publishable.