> The hardest part of advising Ph.D. students is teaching
> them how to write.
> 
> Fortunately, I've seen patterns emerge over the past couple years.
> 
> So, I've decided to replace myself with a shell script.
> 
> In particular, I've created shell scripts for catching three problems:
> 
> *. abuse of the passive voice,
> *. weasel words, and
> *. lexical illusions.
> 
> And, I've integrated these into the build system of our LaTeX documents.
> 
> The point of these scripts is not to ban all use of constructs
> like the passive voice.
> 
> (When it comes to writing, there are exceptions to every "rule.")
> 
> The point of these scripts is to make sure that my students and I make a
> //conscious// choice to use these constructs.
> 
> When these scripts highlight a sentence, my students should ask
> themselves, "Is there a better way to say what I said--a way to make
> the text read with more clarity and precision?"  Often enough, the
> answer is "yes."
> 
> The meta-point of this article is that writers should learn their
> individual weaknesses.
> 
> And, when writers are programmers, we should enlist automation to
> combat these weaknesses.1