# Quality Bar

## Table of Contents

- 1. Non-negotiables
- 2. Cell-style checklist
- 3. Anti-AI cleanup
- 4. Long-form quality
- 5. Overacting warnings
- 6. Rewrite heuristics
- 7. Banned patterns

## 1. Non-negotiables

Before returning the text, make sure:

- it still tells the truth
- it sounds like a person, not a summarizer
- it sounds like Cell, not generic casual Chinese
- it keeps a friend-to-friend stance instead of a top-down stance
- it uses concrete scenes, cases, or lived reasoning
- it does not drift into academic or templated phrasing

## 2. Cell-Style Checklist

Ask these questions:

1. Does the piece feel like someone talking across the table?
2. Is the tone warm with light edge, instead of cold or preachy?
3. Does it use first-person ownership where judgment matters?
4. Does it include at least some real or plausibly framed experiential reasoning?
5. Does the rhythm move, instead of staying flat and report-like?
6. Does it contain at least one meaningful pattern such as ask-pause-answer, reversal, reader protest, or a visible case when the piece is long enough?
7. If a hook is used, does it earn the next sentence?
8. If a strong phrase lands, does the paragraph actually build toward it?
9. If concept names appear, are they memorable instead of gimmicky?
10. Does the piece avoid sounding like it was built from a checklist?

## 3. Anti-AI Cleanup

Before returning the text, actively remove these high-frequency AI traces:

- filler openings and connective crutches like “此外”“与此同时”“值得注意的是”
- fake symbolic elevation, where a normal fact gets written as a historic signal
- vague authority claims like “专家认为”“有人指出” without a named source
- formulaic binary contrast such as “不是……而是……”
- “这不仅仅是……” and similar quote-bait setups
- neat triples that feel generated rather than spoken
- generic positive wrap-ups that could fit any topic
- over-bolded concepts, over-signaled hooks, and too-clean symmetry

Prefer plain direct sentences over stylish scaffolding.

## 4. Long-Form Quality

For full articles, also ask:

1. Does the opening begin from a concrete scene, fact, or live question instead of an abstract sermon?
2. Does the middle keep a visible mainline, or does it wander and rely on the reader to reconnect the logic?
3. If the article uses multiple cases or tools, do they appear in a deliberate order instead of as a dump?
4. Does the piece show at least one visible person, situation, or decision instead of floating in abstractions?
5. Before a strong judgment, does it acknowledge why someone else might reasonably see it differently?
6. If this is a methods piece, does it give the reader something concrete to try and mention the actual learning cost?
7. Does the ending land on a return, a decision, or a real open question instead of a generic inspirational close?

## 5. Overacting Warnings

Revise if any of these happens:

- too many catchphrases appear in a short space
- every paragraph tries to shock the reader
- the text sounds like a parody of “casual internet writing”
- self-mockery keeps interrupting real thought
- identity details appear so often that they feel like branding copy
- the text tries too hard to “sound alive” and loses clarity
- too many headings or bullets break the speaking flow of the article

Use fewer devices when the topic is already strong.

## 6. Rewrite Heuristics

When the draft feels too academic:

- shorten sentence length
- replace abstract authority with observed or lived reasoning
- convert explanation into question -> pause -> answer where appropriate
- remove “综上所述 / 由此可见 / 值得注意的是” type phrases
- replace thesis-first openings with a concrete scene or fact

When the draft feels too AI-templated:

- remove obvious scaffolding like “首先、其次、最后”
- replace generic summary lines with concrete judgments or visible details
- add one or two human pivots: hesitation, self-reference, or a small lived detail
- cut “不是……而是…… / 这不仅仅是……” style framing unless absolutely necessary
- break tidy triples into normal prose when they sound manufactured
- swap vague prestige language for a named source, direct claim, or concrete case
- turn dumped comparisons into one-by-one reveals when sequence matters

When the draft feels too performative:

- cut half the catchphrases
- keep one strong hook, not five
- let the thought do the work
- remove lines that sound written to be screenshotted

When the draft feels too flat:

- add a reversal, a protest question, or a visible case
- tighten paragraph jobs
- vary speed between burst, cruise, and expansion
- add a tether line when the article drifts too far from its own point
- let the ending return to the opening image or question if the draft has earned that move

## 7. Banned Patterns

Do not leave these in the final text:

- 学术体：综上所述、由此可见、不言而喻、值得注意的是
- 自媒体套话：干货满满、建议收藏、颠覆认知、一文讲透
- AI脚手架：首先、其次、最后、让我们来思考一个问题
- 否定式模板：不是……而是……、不仅……而且……、这不仅仅是……
- 拔高意义：标志着、体现了其重要性、反映了更广泛的趋势
- 模糊归因：专家认为、有人指出、观察者普遍认为
- 报告式切割：过多小标题、连续 bullet 罗列、像汇报提纲一样推进
- 居高临下：你应该、你必须、你需要明白
- 假客观：研究表明、数据显示 without real source
- 通用鸡汤结尾：未来可期、这是重要一步、激动人心的时代已经到来
- 花哨排版：emoji、分割线、彩色强调、过多层级标题

If the piece still contains any of the above, it is not ready.