What the project provides
RhetoriLex is a structured catalog of independently authored English patterns for academic and scientific writing. Each record links a rhetorical function to a template, manuscript stage, claim strength, evidence requirement, risk level, and review notes. The web explorer, Python interface, command-line tool, and Agent Skill consume the same released data.
The catalog is a writing aid, not an authority on whether a scientific claim is true. Writers remain responsible for source accuracy, disciplinary conventions, research integrity, and the fit between wording and evidence.
Clean-room authorship and provenance
Released patterns are original editorial work. Restricted local source inventories are excluded from the repository and release artifacts. The project does not import, reproduce, or lightly rewrite the Manchester Academic Phrasebank inventory. External resources may inform concepts, taxonomy, or aggregate validation only when their role and license are documented.
Build checks scan tracked and packaged content for restricted filenames and other leakage indicators. Provenance records state what was considered, what was excluded, and why. Read the complete provenance policy before proposing a new corpus source.
Licensing and attribution
Original editorial data and human-facing documentation are released under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0. Software and Agent Skill instructions are released under Apache License 2.0. Third-party material, if accepted in the future, must retain its own notice and may not be covered by either project license.
Created by Reza Prama Arviandi. Contributors are credited through repository history and release records. See the software license, data license, and governance policy.
How to contribute responsibly
Propose a rhetorical need, evidence contract, and original wording. Do not contribute phrases copied from restricted sources or manuscripts without authorisation. Tests check schema validity, deterministic builds, safety semantics, and provenance metadata. Editorial review checks whether a pattern is useful, distinct, natural, and calibrated to its evidence requirement.
Use the repository issue tracker for defects, taxonomy proposals, accessibility reports, and documentation improvements. Report security concerns through the documented private channel rather than a public issue.