# AI Grammar and Clarity Review

## Objective

Flag grammar, readability, and ambiguity problems without rewriting the author's voice.

An inline review pass that marks suspected issues in a document with an explanation and a suggested fix the author applies one at a time.

## Before You Begin

This feature is being added to an application that already exists and already
works. Do not scaffold a new project, and do not assume a blank slate.

Inspect the codebase first and establish:

- The existing application structure and where code of this kind already lives.
- The framework and version in use.
- The existing design system — colours, spacing, typography, and component conventions.
- Existing UI components you can reuse instead of writing new ones.
- The existing database structure, if this feature needs to persist anything.
- The existing authentication and authorization system, if this feature is user-scoped.
- Dependencies already installed, so you don't add a library that duplicates one.
- The existing test setup and conventions.

Only start writing code once you understand the above. If the application
already implements part of this feature, extend it rather than replacing it.

## Implementation Instructions

1. Return findings anchored to positions in the text, each with a category, a short reason, and a proposed replacement. Do not return a rewritten document; the author applies fixes individually.
2. Separate confident mechanical errors from judgement calls about clarity, and present them differently. Grouping a subject-verb disagreement with a suggestion to shorten a sentence trains the author to dismiss both.
3. Read from a workspace dictionary of product names, technical terms, and accepted spellings before flagging anything, and give the author a way to add a term from the finding itself.
4. Explain any suggestion that changes emphasis, structure, or meaning rather than offering a silent replacement, so the author can tell a correction from an opinion.
5. Wholesale restructuring belongs to AI Text Rewriting and register changes belong to AI Tone Adjustment. This feature owns detection and never applies a change the author did not accept.

## UI and UX Requirements

Match the application's existing design system exactly. Reuse its components,
spacing, and typography. This feature should look like it was always there.

## Responsive Requirements

Works on mobile, tablet, and desktop. Touch targets are large enough to hit on a
phone, and nothing overflows horizontally at 320px.

## Accessibility Requirements

- Fully keyboard navigable.
- Correct semantic elements and ARIA roles.
- Visible focus states.
- Meets WCAG AA contrast.
- Dynamic changes are announced to screen readers.
- Respects prefers-reduced-motion.

## Edge Cases

- Deliberate style is not an error. Sentence fragments, informal address, and unconventional punctuation used consistently should be left alone or flagged at the lowest confidence, never corrected automatically.
- Product names, code identifiers, industry jargon, and internal acronyms will be flagged as misspellings unless the workspace dictionary is consulted first and additions take effect immediately.
- High-impact suggestions must carry a reason. A replacement offered without explanation is indistinguishable from a rewrite and gets accepted without thought.
- Formatting must survive the review. Applying a fix must not flatten a link, break a list, drop emphasis, or disturb code blocks and quoted passages.
- Mixed-language and non-English content must be detected and either reviewed in that language or skipped with a clear message, rather than being flagged wholesale as errors.
- Positions drift as the author edits. Re-anchor or invalidate findings when the underlying text changes, so a fix is never applied to the wrong span.
- Long documents exceed the token ceiling. Review in sections with a documented boundary, show progress, and never present a partial review as a complete one.
- A refusal, a timeout, or malformed findings must leave the document unmarked and unmodified, with the failure stated rather than shown as a clean bill of health.

## Testing

Exercise the feature end to end in the running application. Cover every edge case
above, then run the existing test suite and confirm nothing regressed.

## Acceptance Criteria

- [ ] Findings are anchored to text positions and carry a category, a reason, and a suggested fix.
- [ ] Mechanical errors and clarity judgements are visually and textually distinguished.
- [ ] Terms in the workspace dictionary are never flagged, and terms can be added from a finding.
- [ ] No change is applied to the document without the author accepting that specific finding.
- [ ] Applying a fix preserves links, lists, emphasis, and code formatting.
- [ ] Non-English or mixed-language content is handled explicitly rather than flagged as error.
- [ ] Findings are invalidated or re-anchored when the underlying text is edited.
- [ ] The feature matches the existing design system.
- [ ] No existing functionality is broken.

## Adaptation Rules

- Match the existing design system. Do not introduce a new colour palette,
  spacing scale, or component library.
- Reuse existing components and utilities wherever they fit.
- Follow the naming, file layout, and code style already present.
- Do not upgrade, replace, or remove existing dependencies to make this
  feature fit. Adapt the feature to the app, not the app to the feature.
- Do not break existing functionality. If a change is genuinely required in
  existing code, make the smallest one that works and say so.
- If something in these instructions conflicts with how the application is
  built, follow the application and explain the deviation.

## Final Verification

Before you report the work as done:

1. Re-read the acceptance criteria above and check each one against what you
   actually built.
2. Run the application and exercise the feature end to end.
3. Run the existing test suite and confirm you have broken nothing.
4. Check the feature on mobile, tablet, and desktop widths.
5. Check keyboard navigation and focus handling.
6. Summarize what changed: files added, files modified, and anything you
   deliberately did differently because of how this application is built.

If any acceptance criterion is unmet, fix it before reporting completion.