Rewrites any text into plain, clear language without changing the meaning, and shows what changed and why.
What it does
Some writing makes people read it twice and then ask someone what it means. Policies, letters from official-sounding departments, terms pages, the notice that arrived about your account. The information is in there, buried under long sentences and words nobody says out loud.
With this skill active, the assistant does something before rewriting: it lists every number, deadline, condition and exception in the original. Then it rewrites, then it checks the new version against that list. That is the difference between clearer writing and writing that reads well while quietly dropping the clause about the 14-day deadline.
You get the plain version, a short list of exactly what changed and how much, and one honest line about anything it was unsure of. It will tell you when a sentence had two possible meanings rather than picking one for you.
You end up with a clear version, a checkable list of what changed, and an honest flag on anything that was ambiguous.
When to reach for it
Use it on anything people keep asking questions about: a policy, a customer letter, a help page, a form, an error message, a notice going to the public.
Skip it when the writing is already clear; rewriting clear text just to change it is a waste. And for contracts or anything legally binding, treat the plain version as a draft for a lawyer to confirm, not a replacement you can publish on its own.
---
name: plain-language-editor
description: Rewrites dense, jargon-heavy or bureaucratic text into language a busy reader understands on the first pass, keeping every fact and condition intact, and hands back a change log so the writer can check nothing was lost. Use on policies, emails, help pages, forms, notices, or any writing that people keep asking about.
---
# Plain Language Editor
You make writing easier to read without making it say anything different. Those two jobs pull against each other, and when they conflict, meaning wins every time.
## Workflow
Understanding the text is a separate step from rewriting it. Skipping the first produces a version that reads beautifully and quietly says something else.
1. **Read for the core message.** What does this tell the reader to know, do, or decide?
2. **Ask three questions** about audience, fixed terms, and format.
3. **Extract the facts.** List every number, date, condition, exception and obligation before touching a word.
4. **Rewrite** using the eight habits below.
5. **Run the meaning check** against your fact list. Every item must still be there.
6. **Write the change log.** Three to six lines naming the biggest changes.
7. **Flag anything at risk** in one honest line, or say plainly that nothing was.
```text
Plain language checklist
[ ] Core message identified in one sentence
[ ] Audience known, or an assumption stated out loud
[ ] Must-keep terms listed before rewriting
[ ] Facts extracted: numbers, dates, conditions, exceptions, obligations
[ ] Rewritten with short sentences, everyday words, active voice, direct address
[ ] Meaning check: every extracted fact still present and unchanged
[ ] No new claim, promise, deadline or reassurance introduced
[ ] Change log written, 3-6 lines
[ ] Anything at risk flagged, or explicitly stated as nothing
```
## Step 2: the three questions
Ask all three at once, keep it short:
- **Who reads this?** Customers, staff, the public, applicants, a specific team. If they cannot say, assume a busy adult with no background in the subject and no patience, and say that is what you assumed.
- **Which words have to stay exactly as they are?** Legal terms, regulated phrases, product names, defined terms with a specific meaning elsewhere in the document.
- **Where does it live?** A letter, a web page, a form, a sign, a text message. A sign gets seven words. A policy page can have subheadings and a list.
## Step 3: extract the facts first
Before rewriting, list every load-bearing element. This list is what you check the rewrite against, and it is the only reliable defence against the classic failure of this work, which is a lovely clear paragraph that has dropped an exception.
Pull out:
- **Numbers and dates.** Amounts, percentages, deadlines, durations, ages.
- **Conditions.** Every "if", "unless", "provided that", "except where".
- **Obligations and permissions.** Must, may, will, is entitled to, is required to. These are not interchangeable and swapping them changes what the document does.
- **Actors.** Who does the thing. Passive sentences hide this, and it is usually the most important missing word.
- **Exceptions.** The clause after the comma that nobody reads.
## Step 4: the eight habits
1. **One idea per sentence.** Aim for fifteen to twenty words. Split anything past thirty, usually at "and", "which" or a semicolon.
2. **Everyday words.** Use over utilise, start over commence, end over terminate, about over approximately, help over facilitate, buy over purchase, need over require.
3. **Active voice with a named actor.** "The file was sent" hides who sent it. "We sent the file" does not.
4. **Talk to the reader as "you".** "You need a manager's approval" beats "approval must be obtained by the applicant".
5. **Verbs instead of noun-clumps.** "Make a decision" becomes "decide". "Carry out an assessment" becomes "assess". "Provide notification" becomes "tell".
6. **Cut filler.** "In order to" becomes "to". "At this point in time" becomes "now". "Due to the fact that" becomes "because". "It should be noted that" becomes nothing.
7. **Break blocks up.** Three or more conditions become a list. Long text gets subheadings that say what the section is about.
8. **Put the reader's question first.** Most official writing opens with background and buries the answer. Lead with what the reader needs, then explain.
## Step 5: the meeting-in-the-middle rule
When a required term must stay, keep it and explain it once, in the same breath:
> You must give reasonable notice. Reasonable notice means at least 30 days in writing.
Do not delete the term, and do not replace it with your own paraphrase. Legal and regulated terms carry a defined meaning; an approximate synonym is a different rule.
## Step 6: the change log
Three to six lines, specific enough that the writer can spot-check you. Name the fix and the count.
> - Split a 47-word opening sentence into three.
> - Removed jargon: "utilisation", "contingent upon", "prior authorisation".
> - Changed six passive sentences to active and named who acts in each.
> - Turned the three conditions in paragraph 2 into a list.
> - Kept "reasonable notice" as required and defined it inline.
Vague log lines like "simplified the language" are worthless, because they cannot be checked.
## Step 7: flag what is at risk
One honest line at the end. Either:
> Nothing in the meaning changed. Every condition, date and exception from the original is in the rewrite.
or:
> Check paragraph 3. The original said "may be eligible", which I read as discretionary rather than automatic. If it is automatic, that sentence needs to change back.
Where an original sentence is genuinely ambiguous, do not resolve it silently. Say what the two readings are and ask which one is meant.
## Example
**Before:**
> Utilisation of the facility is contingent upon prior authorisation being obtained from management. Applicants should be advised that in the event that authorisation is not granted, an appeal may be submitted within a period of fourteen (14) days from the date of notification, provided that such appeal is submitted in writing.
**After:**
> You need a manager's approval before you can use the space.
>
> If your request is turned down, you can appeal. Write to us within 14 days of the date we tell you.
**What changed:**
- Split two long sentences into three short ones and cut the word count from 58 to 32.
- Removed jargon: "utilisation", "contingent upon", "prior authorisation", "in the event that".
- Changed four passive constructions to active and made "you" the actor.
- "Fourteen (14) days" became "14 days"; the number and the condition are unchanged.
- Kept the appeal requirement to be in writing, which the original made a condition.
**At risk:** nothing. The approval requirement, the 14-day window, the start point for that window, and the written-appeal condition are all still there.
## Rules
- Meaning first. If simplifying would drop a condition, keep the condition and simplify around it.
- Never delete a legal, safety or financial detail. Clarify it instead.
- Never add a claim, promise, reassurance, deadline or exception that was not in the original. "We're here to help" is an addition.
- Do not swap must, may and will for one another. They are different instructions.
- Aim for something a twelve-year-old could follow, unless the audience is specialist, in which case aim for what a new member of that profession could follow.
- If the original is already clear, say so and make small fixes only. Rewriting clear text to prove you were here is a disservice.
- Match the register the situation calls for. Plain does not mean chatty, and a serious notice should still read as serious.
## Edge cases
- **The original is ambiguous.** Two readings and you cannot tell which is meant. Do not pick one. Show both readings and ask, then rewrite once you have an answer.
- **Legal text.** Rewrite it, then say plainly that a lawyer needs to confirm the plain version carries the same effect before it replaces the original. Some documents keep both: the binding text and a plain-language summary beside it.
- **Safety-critical instructions.** Order matters more than elegance. Keep sequence, warnings before the step they apply to, and never merge two steps into one sentence.
- **It is dense because the subject is dense.** Some content is genuinely complicated. Simplify the sentences, keep the concepts, and add a short "what this means for you" line rather than pretending the complexity is not there.
- **The writer wants to sound authoritative.** Clear writing reads as more competent, not less, and it is worth saying so once. Then keep whatever formality the situation actually needs.
- **Translated text.** Odd phrasing may be a translation artefact rather than the author's choice. Flag the passages you were unsure about instead of smoothing them into confident wording.
- **Very long documents.** Do not silently rewrite forty pages. Do one representative section, show it, agree the approach, then continue.
- **Text with a word or character limit.** Say the limit up front and count. Plain language is usually shorter, but not always, and a rewrite that misses the limit is unusable.
## Files
- `references/examples.md` - three complete rewrites with their change logs: an insurance letter, an internal HR policy, and a signup error message. Read the letter one before your first rewrite; it shows how much can be cut without losing a single condition.
- `references/word-swaps.md` - the substitution tables for jargon, noun-clumps, filler phrases and hedges, plus the words you must never swap and a short readability self-check. Read it during step 4.
references/examples.md
# Worked rewrites
Three originals, three rewrites, three change logs. Each one is checked against a fact list, and each one shows a different failure mode of the original writing.
## Contents
- [Example 1: an insurance decision letter](#example-1-an-insurance-decision-letter)
- [Example 2: an internal expenses policy](#example-2-an-internal-expenses-policy)
- [Example 3: a signup error message](#example-3-a-signup-error-message)
- [What the three rewrites have in common](#what-the-three-rewrites-have-in-common)
---
## Example 1: an insurance decision letter
**Audience:** a customer who has just had a claim partly refused. **Must-keep terms:** "excess", "policy schedule". **Format:** a posted letter.
### Before
> Dear Policyholder,
>
> Further to your recent correspondence regarding claim reference CL-88214, we write to advise that following an assessment of the documentation provided, a determination has been reached in respect of your claim.
>
> It has been established that the damage sustained falls partially within the scope of cover as set out in your policy schedule. Accordingly, settlement in the sum of £1,340.00 has been authorised, this figure being net of the applicable excess of £250.00. It should be noted that the remaining portion of the claim, relating to items categorised as high-value personal effects, is not covered under the terms of the policy in the absence of a specified item endorsement, which was not in place at the material time.
>
> In the event that you wish to dispute this determination, representations may be made to our Customer Resolution Team within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of this letter. Thereafter, should you remain dissatisfied, you may be entitled to refer the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service.
>
> Yours faithfully,
> Claims Department
### Fact list extracted before rewriting
- Claim reference CL-88214
- Payment authorised: £1,340.00
- Excess applied: £250.00
- Part of the claim refused: high-value personal effects
- Reason for refusal: no specified item endorsement in place at the time
- Dispute window: 8 weeks from the date of the letter
- Dispute route 1: Customer Resolution Team
- Dispute route 2 after that: Financial Ombudsman Service, conditional ("may be entitled")
### After
> Dear [name],
>
> **About your claim CL-88214: we are paying part of it.**
>
> We are paying you £1,340. That is the amount your policy covers, after we took off your £250 excess.
>
> **What we are not paying, and why**
>
> We are not paying for the high-value personal items in your claim. Your policy only covers those if each one is listed separately on your policy schedule, and none were listed when the damage happened.
>
> **If you disagree**
>
> Write to our Customer Resolution Team within 8 weeks of the date on this letter. If you are still unhappy after they reply, you may be able to take it to the Financial Ombudsman Service.
>
> Yours sincerely,
> Claims Department
### What changed
- Cut from 213 words to 129 and split four long sentences into eight short ones.
- Removed jargon and filler: "further to your recent correspondence", "a determination has been reached", "in respect of", "it should be noted that", "at the material time", "representations may be made".
- Made the outcome the first thing the reader sees. The original buried the payment amount in the second paragraph and the refusal in the middle of a 74-word sentence.
- Changed nine passive constructions to active, so every sentence says who is doing what.
- Added three subheadings so the reader can find the part they care about.
- Kept "excess" and "policy schedule" as required, and explained the endorsement condition in plain words rather than using the term.
### At risk
One thing to check. The original said "you may be entitled to refer the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service", and the rewrite keeps "may be able to". If eligibility is actually automatic for this customer, that sentence should say so, because "may" reads as a discouragement.
**Why the rewrite is shaped this way:** the reader's first question is "how much am I getting", and their second is "why not all of it". The original answered them in the order the claims process happens, which is the writer's order, not the reader's. Every number, the 8-week window and the endorsement condition survive untouched.
---
## Example 2: an internal expenses policy
**Audience:** all staff, most of whom will read this once and then guess. **Must-keep terms:** none. **Format:** an intranet page.
### Before
> Employees are reminded that all expenditure incurred in the course of business travel must be submitted for reimbursement via the designated expenses platform, with the submission of such claims to be effected no later than 30 days following the conclusion of the travel in question. Claims submitted outside of this window may be subject to rejection at the discretion of the relevant line manager, save in circumstances where exceptional justification is provided. Receipts are required in all instances where the value of the individual item of expenditure exceeds £25, and it is the responsibility of the claimant to ensure that such documentation is legible and itemised. Alcohol is not a reimbursable category of expenditure other than in the context of approved client entertainment, in which case pre-authorisation must have been obtained.
### Fact list extracted before rewriting
- Claims go through the expenses platform
- Deadline: 30 days after the trip ends
- Late claims: may be rejected, line manager's discretion, exception for exceptional justification
- Receipts required above £25 per item
- Receipts must be legible and itemised, claimant's responsibility
- Alcohol not reimbursable, except approved client entertainment
- Client entertainment alcohol needs pre-authorisation
### After
> **Claiming travel expenses**
>
> Claim through the expenses platform within 30 days of getting back from your trip.
>
> If you claim later than that, your line manager can reject it. They can make an exception if you have a good reason.
>
> **Receipts**
>
> You need a receipt for anything over £25. Each receipt must be readable and show the individual items, not just a total. That is your job, not your manager's.
>
> **Alcohol**
>
> We do not reimburse alcohol, with one exception: client entertainment that was approved before the event. Get that approval first. Without it, the claim will not be paid.
### What changed
- Split one 133-word paragraph into four short sections with headings.
- Removed noun-clumps and filler: "expenditure incurred in the course of", "to be effected", "in all instances where", "in the context of", "a reimbursable category of expenditure".
- Changed the whole thing from third-person passive to "you", so the reader knows the rules apply to them.
- "Save in circumstances where exceptional justification is provided" became "They can make an exception if you have a good reason", keeping the discretion and the exception.
- Made the alcohol rule a section of its own, because it was the most-asked question and was buried in the last clause.
### At risk
Nothing. All seven items from the fact list are present, including the itemisation requirement and whose responsibility it is.
**Why the rewrite is shaped this way:** policies get read once and misremembered. Headings that name the thing people search for ("Receipts", "Alcohol") do more for comprehension than any sentence-level fix. The 30-day deadline moved into the first line because it is the rule people actually break.
---
## Example 3: a signup error message
**Audience:** someone halfway through creating an account. **Must-keep terms:** none. **Format:** a message in a box under a form field, 25 words maximum.
### Before
> An error has occurred during the validation of the credentials supplied. Please ensure that the information entered conforms to the required parameters and re-attempt submission.
### After
> That password is too short. Use at least 12 characters, including one number.
### What changed
- Cut from 24 words to 13, inside the 25-word limit.
- Named the actual problem. The original said an error occurred without saying which field or why, which is the failure that matters here.
- Removed jargon: "validation of the credentials supplied", "conforms to the required parameters", "re-attempt submission".
- Told the reader what to do next in concrete terms, rather than asking them to check their input against rules they have not been shown.
### At risk
One thing to check with whoever owns the form. The original was generic because it fires for several different validation failures. The rewrite is specific to a short password, so the other cases need their own messages. A single message that names one cause is worse than a vague one if it fires for the wrong reason.
**Why the rewrite is shaped this way:** an error message has one job, which is to get the person unstuck. "An error has occurred" tells them something they already knew. This is also the example where the rewrite exposed a design problem rather than a writing problem, which is common and worth saying out loud rather than papering over.
---
## What the three rewrites have in common
1. The facts were listed before a word was rewritten, and the rewrite was checked against that list. Every number, deadline, condition and exception survived in all three.
2. The reader's first question moved to the top. The payment amount, the 30-day deadline, and the actual cause of the error each led their rewrite.
3. Nothing was added. No reassurance, no apology, no "we're here to help", no invented deadline.
4. The change log names counts and specific words, so the original writer can spot-check the claim rather than take it on trust.
5. Two of the three flagged something at risk. Being honest about the one sentence you were unsure of is what makes the other twenty trustworthy.
references/word-swaps.md
# Swaps, and what never to swap
The mechanical half of the work. Use these during step 4, then stop using them and read the whole thing aloud, because a paragraph of correct substitutions can still be unreadable.
## Contents
- [Jargon and formal words](#jargon-and-formal-words)
- [Noun-clumps back into verbs](#noun-clumps-back-into-verbs)
- [Filler to delete](#filler-to-delete)
- [Hedges](#hedges)
- [Never swap these](#never-swap-these)
- [Fixing passive voice](#fixing-passive-voice)
- [Structure moves](#structure-moves)
- [The read-aloud check](#the-read-aloud-check)
---
## Jargon and formal words
| Instead of | Use |
|---|---|
| utilise, utilisation | use |
| commence, initiate | start |
| terminate, cease | end, stop |
| facilitate | help, make easier |
| endeavour | try |
| ascertain | find out |
| purchase | buy |
| require | need |
| obtain | get |
| provide | give |
| advise (meaning tell) | tell |
| approximately | about |
| sufficient | enough |
| additional | more, extra |
| prior to | before |
| subsequent to | after |
| in excess of | more than |
| the remainder | the rest |
| currently | now, or delete |
| assist | help |
| demonstrate | show |
| implement | do, set up, start using |
| leverage | use |
| in receipt of | have, got |
| notwithstanding | despite, even if |
## Noun-clumps back into verbs
Official writing turns verbs into nouns and then needs a limp verb to carry them. Turn them back.
| Instead of | Use |
|---|---|
| make a decision | decide |
| carry out an assessment | assess |
| provide notification | tell |
| conduct a review | review |
| give consideration to | consider |
| undertake an investigation | investigate |
| perform an analysis | analyse |
| reach a determination | decide |
| effect a transfer | transfer |
| is in violation of | breaks |
| take into account | consider |
| has a requirement for | needs |
The tell is a sentence built on make, carry out, conduct, undertake, perform, effect or provide. Find the real verb hiding behind it.
## Filler to delete
| Delete | Replace with |
|---|---|
| in order to | to |
| due to the fact that | because |
| at this point in time | now |
| in the event that | if |
| for the purpose of | to |
| with regard to, in respect of | about |
| it should be noted that | nothing |
| please be advised that | nothing |
| it is important to remember that | nothing |
| as you may be aware | nothing |
| in a timely manner | by a named date |
| going forward | from now on, or nothing |
| a number of | say how many |
| in the majority of cases | usually |
| on a monthly basis | monthly |
| during the course of | during |
| in close proximity to | near |
| has the ability to | can |
"In a timely manner" deserves its own note. It is a deadline with the date removed. Replace it with the real date, and if there is no real date, that is a finding worth raising.
## Hedges
Hedges are sometimes load-bearing and sometimes cowardice. Check which before cutting.
| Hedge | If it is protecting a genuine uncertainty | If it is just softening |
|---|---|---|
| may be | keep it, and say what it depends on | change to "is" or "can" |
| it is possible that | keep, name the condition | delete |
| we would suggest | keep if genuinely optional | change to "we recommend" or an instruction |
| generally, typically | keep if exceptions exist, and name one | delete |
| should be | keep if advisory | change to "must" if it is a rule |
A stack of two or more hedges in one sentence is almost always cowardice: "it may possibly be the case that". Reduce to one at most.
## Never swap these
Leave these exactly as written, and if you think one is wrong, ask rather than change it.
- **must / may / will / shall.** Obligation, permission, prediction and requirement are four different instructions. Swapping them changes what the document does.
- **and / or.** "A and B" is not "A or B". Watch for lists where the final conjunction decides whether all conditions apply.
- **Numbers, dates, amounts, percentages, durations, ages.** Reformat "fourteen (14)" to "14"; never round, never approximate.
- **Defined terms.** Any term the document or a related document defines. Keep it and explain it inline instead.
- **Legal, regulatory and safety terms.** Reasonable notice, material breach, force majeure, excess, gross negligence. These have settled meanings your synonym does not carry.
- **Named entities.** Product names, team names, legal entity names, official titles.
- **Every exception clause.** The bit after "except", "unless", "save where", "other than". It is the most-cut and most-important part of any dense sentence.
## Fixing passive voice
The recipe: find the verb, ask who did it, put them at the front.
| Passive | Active |
|---|---|
| The file was sent on Monday. | We sent the file on Monday. |
| Approval must be obtained. | You must get your manager's approval. |
| A determination has been reached. | We have decided. |
| Claims may be rejected. | Your line manager can reject the claim. |
| It was agreed that the date would move. | The team agreed to move the date. |
If you genuinely cannot tell who acts, that is the finding. Ask, rather than inventing an actor or leaving the passive in place. Passive voice in official writing usually hides an actor on purpose, and naming them is often the single biggest improvement available.
Passive is fine in two cases: the actor is unknown and unknowable, or the thing acted on is genuinely the subject of the sentence ("Your account was closed on 3 March" is fine if the reader cares about the account, not the closer).
## Structure moves
- **Answer first.** Lead with what the reader needs to know or do. Background goes after, if it goes in at all.
- **Three or more conditions become a list.** Prose that carries four "if" clauses cannot be parsed on one read.
- **One idea per paragraph,** two to four lines.
- **Headings that name the reader's question.** "Receipts" and "If you disagree" beat "Section 4.2" and "General provisions".
- **Put warnings before the step they apply to,** never after.
- **Keep sequence in sequence.** Numbered steps for anything done in an order.
## The read-aloud check
Read the rewrite out loud. Then check:
1. Did you run out of breath in any sentence? Split it.
2. Did you stumble on a word? Swap it, unless it is a must-keep term.
3. Could you say the first paragraph to a friend from memory? If not, the main point is still buried.
4. Does anything sound like it is trying to avoid saying something? Find the actor and name them.
5. Is it shorter than the original? Usually it should be. If it is longer, check you have not explained something that did not need explaining.
Install it
Claude Code (this project)
Unzip the download into .claude/skills/. The folder is already named right.
Claude Code (every project)
Unzip into ~/.claude/skills/ to use it everywhere.
claude.ai
Upload the zip under Settings, then Capabilities, then Skills (paid plans).
How to call it
Just describe the task. The description line inside the skill does the matching. Or call it directly:
/plain-language-editorrewrite this in plain Englishmake this policy easier to understandcut the jargon out of this letterthis paragraph is too complicated, simplify itwill a normal person understand this page
Works beyond Claude
Skills use the open Agent Skills format. The exact same folder works in OpenAI Codex, Gemini CLI, Cursor, GitHub Copilot and other tools that read the format.
Using a plain chat app? Paste SKILL.md into ChatGPT or Gemini as instructions. You lose auto-triggering, but the method still works.
