## Examples

<REVIEW>
The incandescent luminescence of twilight's dying breath painted the heavens in hues of amethyst and vermillion, while shadows danced their ancient waltz across the emerald tapestry of the lawn. Rebecca's heart thundered like a thousand war drums as she glimpsed his silhouette, a dark prince emerging from the veil of dusk's embrace.
</REVIEW>

<ANALYSIS>
- Thought process: This is trying way too hard to describe a simple sunset scene. Every single phrase is overwritten with metaphors and fancy vocabulary when it could just say "sunset" and "she saw him."
- Purple prose: MAJOR ISSUES - "incandescent luminescence," "twilight's dying breath," "ancient waltz," "thousand war drums," "dark prince" 
- Unnatural dialogue: N/A - no dialogue
- Over-description: YES - simple sunset/shadow scene made overly complex
- Length: TOO LONG - could be said in 1-2 sentences
- Tense: PAST - "Rebecca's heart thundered like a thousand war drums"
- Mature content: N/A
- Name overuse: N/A - no dialogue
- Talking vs Showing: N/A - no dialogue
</ANALYSIS>

<FIX>
The sunset cast purple and red across the sky as shadows stretched across the lawn. Rebecca's heart raced when she saw him walking up the driveway.
</FIX>

---

<REVIEW>
"Hello, Mother. I have returned from my educational institution," said Tim.
"Excellent. Did you successfully complete your mathematical assignments?" she responded.
"Affirmative. I achieved a score of ninety-two percent on my algebraic examination."
"That is most satisfactory. Please proceed to consume your afternoon snack in the kitchen area."
</REVIEW>

<ANALYSIS>
- Thought process: This reads like robots trying to imitate human conversation. No real person says "educational institution" instead of "school" or talks without contractions. The mother-son dynamic is completely missing.
- Purple prose: MINOR - overly formal word choices
- Unnatural dialogue: MAJOR ISSUES - no contractions, robotic speech, "educational institution" instead of school
- Over-description: NO
- Length: OK
- Tense: PAST - "said Tim"
- Mature content: N/A
- Name overuse: "Mother" - kids say "Mom" not "Mother"
- Talking vs Showing: NO - natural conversation flow, not over-explaining
</ANALYSIS>

<FIX>
"Hey Mom, I'm home," Tim called out.
"Hi sweetie! How'd your math test go?"
"Pretty good—got a 92."
"That's great! There's snacks in the kitchen if you're hungry."
</FIX>

---

<REVIEW>
She reaches for the door handle. Her index finger extends first, followed by her middle finger, then her ring finger, and finally her pinky. Her thumb moves to oppose them. The metal is cool to the touch, approximately 68 degrees Fahrenheit. She grips it with 3.2 pounds of pressure and rotates her wrist 47 degrees clockwise.
</REVIEW>

<ANALYSIS>
- Thought process: While the exact measurements and finger-by-finger description is excessive, we should keep that the handle was cold - it's a sensory detail that adds atmosphere without being purple prose.
- Purple prose: NO
- Unnatural dialogue: N/A - no dialogue
- Over-description: EXTREME - every finger movement, exact temperature, precise measurements
- Length: WAY TOO LONG - should be 3-4 words
- Tense: PRESENT - "reaches for the door handle"
- Mature content: N/A
- Name overuse: N/A
- Talking vs Showing: N/A - no dialogue
</ANALYSIS>

<FIX>
She gripped the cold metal handle and turned it, opening the door.
</FIX>

---

<REVIEW>
Beneath the opalescent moon's ethereal glow, Jake's sapphire eyes met hers.
"Your presence illuminates my existence more brilliantly than a thousand supernovas," he declared.
"Indeed, our souls appear to be quantum entangled across the cosmic void," she replied, her voice like honeyed ambrosia.
</REVIEW>

<ANALYSIS>
- Thought process: This sounds like someone fed a physics textbook and a bad romance novel into a blender. Real people in love don't speak in astronomical metaphors and quantum physics references. The purple prose is so thick you can barely find the actual emotion underneath.
- Purple prose: SEVERE - "opalescent ethereal glow," "sapphire eyes," "honeyed ambrosia"
- Unnatural dialogue: MAJOR ISSUES - nobody talks about supernovas and quantum entanglement romantically
- Over-description: YES - voice descriptions, eye color unnecessary
- Length: TOO LONG
- Tense: PAST - "eyes met hers"
- Mature content: N/A
- Name overuse: NO - uses pronouns appropriately
- Talking vs Showing: MODERATE - explicitly declaring feelings instead of showing through actions
</ANALYSIS>

<FIX>
Jake took her hand in the moonlight, his thumb tracing small circles on her palm.
"I can't imagine doing this with anyone else," he said quietly.
She squeezed his hand. "Me neither."
</FIX>

---

<REVIEW>
Mark lifted his ceramic coffee mug—white, 12 ounces, with a small chip on the rim—using his right hand. He raised it exactly 7.5 inches from the table surface.
"I am currently experiencing caffeine withdrawal symptoms," he announced to his coworker.
"Perhaps you should ingest the heated caffeinated beverage to alleviate your discomfort," she suggested, adjusting her ergonomic chair to a 95-degree angle.
</REVIEW>

<ANALYSIS>
- Thought process: This reads like a medical journal entry about drinking coffee. The clinical language and precise measurements turn a simple morning coffee scene into a scientific experiment. Plus nobody announces their physical state like they're reading symptoms off a chart.
- Purple prose: MINOR - clinical/scientific language where casual would work
- Unnatural dialogue: SEVERE - "experiencing caffeine withdrawal symptoms" instead of "need coffee"
- Over-description: MAJOR - mug details, exact measurements, chair angle
- Length: TOO LONG
- Tense: PAST - "raised it exactly 7.5 inches from the table surface"
- Mature content: N/A
- Name overuse: NO - avoided names properly
- Talking vs Showing: SEVERE - announcing physical state instead of showing through actions
</ANALYSIS>

<FIX>
Mark grabbed his chipped coffee mug and took a long sip, then rubbed his temples.
"Rough morning?" his coworker asked, noticing the dark circles under his eyes.
"Need more caffeine," he muttered.
</FIX>

{% if decensor %}---

<REVIEW>
"This goddamn contraption is malfunctioning again," she exclaimed with considerable frustration, her delicate fingers trembling like autumn leaves as she gestured toward the temperamental machinery. 
"Perhaps we should attempt to recalibrate the technical parameters," suggested Marcus, adjusting his wire-rimmed spectacles.
"Screw the parameters, Marcus. This piece of shit never works properly," she retorted.
</REVIEW>

<ANALYSIS>
- Thought process: The frustration comes through in the cursing, which is good, but it's buried under purple prose about trembling fingers and autumn leaves. Also, one character talks like they're angry while the other sounds like a technical manual. Marcus's name is used way too much.
- Purple prose: YES - "delicate fingers trembling like autumn leaves," "temperamental machinery"
- Unnatural dialogue: MIXED - some parts natural ("This goddamn contraption"), others stiff ("recalibrate the technical parameters")
- Over-description: YES - hand descriptions, spectacle adjusting
- Length: TOO LONG
- Tense: PAST - "she exclaimed"
- Mature content: PRESERVE - keep "goddamn," "screw," "piece of shit" as is
- Name overuse: YES - "Marcus" used twice unnecessarily
- Talking vs Showing: NO - frustration shown through cursing, not explicitly stated
</ANALYSIS>

<FIX>
"This goddamn thing is broken again," she said, pointing at the machine.
"Maybe we should try recalibrating it?" 
"Screw that. This piece of shit never works."
</FIX>

{% endif %}---

<REVIEW>
"Oh no, I appear to have misplaced my keys again," Jennifer announced to the empty room, her voice echoing off the pristine walls. "I must search for them systematically. First, I shall check the kitchen counter, then proceed to examine my jacket pockets."
She walked to the kitchen. "They are not here," she declared. Moving to the coat rack, she proclaimed, "Ah, here they are! I am quite relieved to have located them."
</REVIEW>

<ANALYSIS>
- Thought process: Nobody talks out loud when they're alone, especially not narrating their every move like they're in a stage play. This should be internal narrative or just actions, not spoken dialogue. The formal language makes it even worse - who says "I shall check" when looking for keys?
- Purple prose: MINOR - "pristine walls," overly formal language
- Unnatural dialogue: SEVERE - nobody narrates their actions aloud when alone
- Over-description: MINOR - "voice echoing"
- Length: TOO LONG
- Tense: PAST - "announced to the empty room"
- Mature content: N/A
- Name overuse: N/A
- Talking vs Showing: SEVERE - character speaking to empty room instead of using narration
</ANALYSIS>

<FIX>
Jennifer couldn't find her keys. She checked the kitchen counter first, then her jacket pockets. There they were. She grabbed them and headed out.
</FIX>

---

<REVIEW>
The morning sun streamed through the window as Emma turned to face her partner.
"I trust you," she said, her voice barely above a whisper. "You know that, right?"
Marcus nodded slowly. "I know. And I trust you too, Emma. We've been through so much together."
She reached for his hand, searching his eyes for reassurance.
</REVIEW>

<UNWANTED_PROSE>
- MATCH: `"I trust you,"`
  - INSTRUCTIONS: Explicit trust declarations in dialogue feel unnatural. Show trust through actions or context instead of stating it directly.
- MATCH: `"And I trust you too, Emma."`
  - INSTRUCTIONS: Explicit trust declarations in dialogue feel unnatural. Show trust through actions or context instead of stating it directly.
</UNWANTED_PROSE>

<ANALYSIS>
- Thought process: This scene has characters explicitly saying "I trust you" which the UNWANTED_PROSE flags identify as unnatural dialogue. Real people rarely make such direct declarations - trust is demonstrated through actions, vulnerability, or implied through context. The scene also has some name overuse with Emma being addressed directly.
- Purple prose: MINOR - "voice barely above a whisper"
- Unnatural dialogue: MAJOR ISSUES - explicit trust declarations flagged in UNWANTED_PROSE
- Over-description: NO
- Length: OK
- Tense: PAST - "The morning sun streamed"
- Mature content: N/A
- Name overuse: YES - "Emma" used when speaking TO her
- Talking vs Showing: SEVERE - explicitly stating trust instead of showing it
- Unwanted prose: YES - trust declarations that need to be replaced per instructions
</ANALYSIS>

<FIX>
The morning sun streamed through the window as Emma turned to face her partner.
"Here," she said quietly, handing him the spare key to her apartment.
Marcus closed his fingers around it, understanding the weight of the gesture. "We've been through so much together."
She squeezed his hand, meeting his eyes with a small smile.
</FIX>

---

<REVIEW>
"I, um, I don't think that's a good idea," Sarah stammered, her emerald eyes glistening with unshed tears as she contemplated the dire ramifications of their proposed course of action.
"Why ever not?" inquired Thomas, his brow furrowing in consternation.
"It's just... I mean... um... something feels wrong about it," she whispered softly.
</REVIEW>

<ANALYSIS>
- Thought process: Sarah's nervous speech pattern with the stammering and "um"s is actually realistic and should be kept, but it's weighed down by purple prose about emerald eyes and dire ramifications. Thomas sounds like he's from a Victorian novel with "Why ever not?" The contrast between their speech styles is jarring.
- Purple prose: YES - "emerald eyes glistening with unshed tears," "dire ramifications," "brow furrowing in consternation"
- Unnatural dialogue: MIXED - Thomas sounds stiff, but Sarah's hesitation is natural
- Over-description: YES - eye color, tear description unnecessary
- Length: SLIGHTLY LONG
- Tense: PAST - "Sarah stammered"
- Mature content: N/A
- Name overuse: NO
- Talking vs Showing: GOOD - nervousness shown through stammering and hesitation
- Speech patterns: PRESERVE - keep "um," "I mean," and stammering
</ANALYSIS>

<FIX>
"I, um, I don't think that's a good idea," Sarah said, shifting uncomfortably.
"Why not?"
She bit her lip, looking away. "It's just... I mean... um... something feels wrong about it."
</FIX>

{% if repetition %}---

<REVIEW>
Marcus entered the room, his boots clicking against the marble floor. The chandelier cast dancing shadows across the walls as he surveyed the scene.
"What happened here?" he demanded, his voice echoing in the vast space.
Sarah looked up from where she knelt beside the broken vase. "I don't know. I just got here myself."
Marcus entered the room, his boots clicking against the marble floor. He needed answers, and he needed them now.
</REVIEW>

<REPETITION ISSUES>
- MATCH: `Marcus entered the room, his boots clicking against the marble floor.`
</REPETITION ISSUES>

<ANALYSIS>
- Thought process: The AI has repeated an exact sentence from earlier - "Marcus entered the room, his boots clicking against the marble floor." This is lazy writing that needs to be replaced with something that moves the scene forward instead of repeating what already happened.
- Purple prose: MINOR - "dancing shadows," "vast space"
- Unnatural dialogue: NO - dialogue is natural
- Over-description: MINOR - some unnecessary detail
- Length: OK
- Tense: PAST - "Marcus entered"
- Mature content: N/A
- Name overuse: NO - names used appropriately
- Talking vs Showing: OK
- Repetition: YES - exact sentence repeated from earlier in the scene
</ANALYSIS>

<FIX>
Marcus entered the room, his boots clicking against the marble floor. The chandelier cast shadows across the walls as he surveyed the scene.
"What happened here?" he demanded.
Sarah looked up from where she knelt beside the broken vase. "I don't know. I just got here myself."
He crossed to the window, checking if it had been forced open. "Someone was looking for something specific."
</FIX>

{% endif %}---

<REVIEW>
"Hi David, how are you today?" asked Emily.
"I'm doing well, Emily. Have you seen Michael?"
"No, David, I haven't seen Michael. But Sarah said she saw him earlier."
"Thanks, Emily. I'll check his office."
</REVIEW>

<ANALYSIS>
- Thought process: The constant name-dropping makes this sound like they just met at a networking event. The office reference suggests these are colleagues, not romantic partners, so we should just remove names, not add pet names.
- Purple prose: NO
- Unnatural dialogue: MINOR - slightly formal
- Over-description: NO
- Length: OK
- Tense: PAST - "asked Emily"
- Mature content: N/A
- Name overuse: YES - "David" and "Emily" used when talking TO each other (remove - no pet names for colleagues), but "Michael" and "Sarah" correctly used when talking ABOUT them (keep)
- Talking vs Showing: OK
</ANALYSIS>

<FIX>
"Hi, how are you today?" Emily asked.
"Good. Have you seen Michael?"
"No, I haven't. But Sarah said she saw him earlier."
"Thanks. I'll check his office."
</FIX>

---

<REVIEW>
"Hey, you okay?" Sarah asked, noticing the dark circles under his eyes.
Marcus shrugged. "Just tired. Been working late on the Morrison case."
"That bad?"
"Yeah." He rubbed his face. "The witness testimonies don't add up. Something's off."
Sarah poured him a coffee. "Want to talk through it?"
</REVIEW>

<ANALYSIS>
- Thought process: This dialogue is natural and flows well. Characters use contractions, speak in fragments, and show emotion through actions rather than stating feelings. No purple prose or name overuse.
- Purple prose: NONE
- Unnatural dialogue: NO - speaks like real people
- Over-description: NO - just enough action to support dialogue
- Length: OK
- Tense: PAST - "Sarah asked"
- Mature content: N/A
- Name overuse: NO - names used appropriately
- Talking vs Showing: GOOD - shows tiredness through appearance and actions

I have identified no issues, i will mark with: <NO_FIX_REQUIRED/>
</ANALYSIS>

<NO_FIX_REQUIRED/>

---

{# SCENE CONTEXT #}
{% set scene_context_text %}
{% set history = scene.context_history(
    budget=1024, 
    min_dialogue=20, 
    sections=False) 
%}
<|SECTION:SCENE|>
{% for scene_context in history -%}
{{ scene_context }}
{% endfor %}
<|CLOSE_SECTION|>
{% endset %}
{# END SCENE CONTEXT #}

{# SCENE ANALYSIS #}
{% set scene_analysis_text %}
{% if scene_analysis %}
<|SECTION:SCENE ANALYSIS|>
{{ scene_analysis }}
<|CLOSE_SECTION|>
{% endif %}
{% endset %}
{# END SCENE ANALYSIS #}

{{ scene_context_text }}

{% with _text=scene_context_text %}{% include "internal-note-help.jinja2" %}{% endwith %}

{{ scene_analysis_text }}

{% include "character-guidance.jinja2" %}

{% with exclude_phase_intent=True %}{% include "scene-intent.jinja2" %}{% endwith %}

{% include "content-classification.jinja2" %}

{% include "writing-style-instructions.jinja2" %}

{% include "dynamic-instructions.jinja2" %}
<|SECTION:TASK|>
Fix bad AI writing by making it simpler, shorter, and more natural. 

**Rules:**
{{ li() }}. REDUCE purple prose - Replace flowery language with simple words
{{ li() }}. PRESERVE KEY DETAILS - Keep ALL concrete facts that matter to the scene:
   - Plot-relevant information (who, what, when, where, why)
   - Character-revealing details (speech patterns, meaningful actions, emotional states)
   - Unique objects, settings, or sensory details that create atmosphere
   - Any detail that would change the meaning if removed
   Only cut pure embellishment that adds no information
{{ li() }}. MAKE dialogue natural - Use contractions, casual speech, how people actually talk. Important: character defining speaking patterns should be preserved.
{{ li() }}. CUT excessive description - Remove unnecessary details, measurements, and over-explanation
{{ li() }}. BE CONCISE - Remove only redundant or purple prose. Length reduction is a side effect, not the goal
{{ li() }}. MATCH THE ORIGINAL TENSE - If the REVIEW passage is in present tense, keep the FIX in present tense. If it's in past tense, keep it in past tense. Only change tense when the original is inconsistent and you're clearly standardising it. 
{{ li() }}. PRESERVE mature content - Keep swear words, slang, and raw language exactly as written
{{ li() }}. AVOID name overuse - NEVER use names when talking TO someone. When removing names:
   - For romantic partners/spouses: Can use "hun," "babe," "sweetie"
   - For children/family: Can use "sweetie," "buddy," "Mom," "Dad," "sis"
   - For friends: Can use "man," "dude," "buddy" (if casual relationship)
   - For colleagues/acquaintances/unclear relationships: Just remove the name, don't add anything
   ONLY use actual names when talking ABOUT someone who isn't there.
{{ li() }}. SHOW don't tell - Use actions and natural dialogue instead of having characters announce their feelings or narrate their actions
{% if repetition %}
{{ li() }}. REMOVE REPETITION - Address the repetition issues. These sentences have been classified as repetition and must either be substantially rewritten or removed. When replacing a sentence, substitute something else, that's meaningful to the story and context.
{% endif %}
{% if bad_prose %}
{{ li() }}. REMOVE UNWANTED PROSE - Address the unwanted prose issues. These phrases have been identified by the director as bad, and MUST be changed accordingly.
{% endif %}

**Common dialogue fixes:**
- "Hello, John" → "Hey"
- "You are doing great, Jessica" → "You're doing great"
- "Thank you, Michael" → "Thanks"
- "I am feeling sad" → [character wipes eyes, voice cracks]
- "I am angry at you" → [character slams door, clenches fists]
- Using "hun," "babe," "sweetie," "man," "dude" etc. when appropriate

**Common name overuse fixes**
TO someone (remove/replace based on relationship):
- "Hi David" → "Hi" (colleague) or "Hey babe" (romantic partner)
- "Thanks, Sarah" → "Thanks" (colleague) or "Thanks, hun" (close relationship)
- "Good morning, Mr. Johnson" → "Good morning" (formal/work setting)
- "Excuse me, Rebecca" → "Excuse me" (stranger/acquaintance)

ABOUT someone (keep):
- "Have you seen David?" → "Have you seen David?"
- "Sarah told me" → "Sarah told me"
- "I need to call Jennifer" → "I need to call Jennifer"
- "Mike's running late" → "Mike's running late"

Mixed examples:
- "John, did you see Mary?" → "Did you see Mary?" (remove John, keep Mary)
- "Thanks for helping, Anna. Tom really appreciated it" → "Thanks for helping. Tom really appreciated it"
- "Mom, where's Dad?" → "Mom, where's Dad?" (family terms stay)

**What to keep vs cut:**
KEEP: Actions that reveal character, sensory details that set mood, specific objects that matter, emotional indicators
CUT: Redundant adjectives, exact measurements, clinical language, overwrought metaphors

Use the examples for a deeper understanding of the task and provide your analysis and fix, with the fix being the final output.

Any changes you propose MUST respect the vision and intention of the story.

If there are no changes needed use a <NO_FIX_REQUIRED/> tag.

<REVIEW>{{ text }}</REVIEW>
{% if repetition %}
<REPETITION>
{% for repeat in repetition %}`{{ repeat["text_a"].strip() }}`
{% endfor -%}
</REPETITION>
{% endif %}
{% if bad_prose %}<UNWANTED_PROSE>
{% for phrase in bad_prose %}- MATCH: `{{ phrase.phrase }}`
  - INSTRUCTIONS: {{ phrase.instructions }}
{% endfor -%}
</UNWANTED_PROSE>
{% endif %}

{{ set_prepared_response("<ANALYSIS>\n- Thought process") }}