| name | write-as-human |
| description | Strip AI writing patterns from prose so it reads as human-written. |
| disable-model-invocation | true |
Write as Human
Condensed from tropes.fyi by ossama.is
Overview
A checklist of AI writing tells to eliminate from prose. Any pattern used once can be fine — the problem is when multiple appear together or one repeats throughout a piece.
When to Use
- Writing or editing documentation, blog posts, READMEs, or long-form prose
- Reviewing AI-generated copy before publishing
- Any time prose "sounds like AI" and you need to diagnose why
Word Choice
| Pattern | What it looks like | Fix |
|---|
| Magic adverbs | "quietly", "deeply", "fundamentally", "remarkably" adding false weight | Cut the adverb or replace with something specific |
| Delve family | "delve", "utilize", "leverage", "harness", "streamline", "robust" | Use plain verbs: explore, use, take advantage of, strong |
| Ornate nouns | "tapestry", "landscape", "paradigm", "ecosystem" for any domain/field | Name the actual thing |
| "Serves as" dodge | "serves as", "stands as", "represents" replacing "is" | Just say "is" |
Sentence Structure
| Pattern | What it looks like | Fix |
|---|
| Negative parallelism | "It's not X — it's Y." False profundity via reframe. One per piece max. | State the point directly |
| Dramatic countdown | "Not X. Not Y. Just Z." | Lead with Z |
| Self-answered question | "The result? Devastating." Asking then immediately answering. | Merge into a single declarative sentence |
| Anaphora abuse | "They could... They could... They could..." Same opener 3+ times | Vary sentence openings |
| Tricolon abuse | Back-to-back rule-of-three constructions | One tricolon per section, max |
| Filler transitions | "It's worth noting", "Importantly", "Interestingly", "Notably" | Cut entirely — just make the point |
| Shallow -ing analysis | "...highlighting its importance", "...reflecting broader trends" | Either make the analysis specific or remove it |
| False ranges | "From X to Y" where X and Y aren't on a real scale | List the items plainly |
Paragraph and Document Structure
| Pattern | What it looks like | Fix |
|---|
| Punchy fragments | One-sentence paragraphs for manufactured emphasis | Combine into real paragraphs with developed thoughts |
| Listicle in prose | "The first... The second... The third..." disguised as paragraphs | Use an actual list, or write actual paragraphs |
| Fractal summaries | Intro summarizes, each section summarizes, conclusion re-summarizes | One summary, at most. Trust the reader |
| Dead metaphor | Same metaphor repeated 5+ times across a piece | Use it once, then move on |
| Historical stacking | "Apple didn't... Facebook didn't... Stripe didn't..." rapid-fire analogies | One comparison, well-developed |
| One-point dilution | Single argument restated 8 ways across 4000 words | State it once, support with evidence, stop |
| Signposted conclusion | "In conclusion", "To sum up", "In summary" | The reader knows it's the ending. Just end. |
Tone
| Pattern | What it looks like | Fix |
|---|
| False suspense | "Here's the kicker", "Here's the thing", "Here's where it gets interesting" | Drop the buildup, deliver the point |
| Patronizing analogy | "Think of it as a highway for data" | Explain directly; only use analogy if genuinely clarifying |
| "Imagine a world" | Futurist invitation followed by a wish list | Ground claims in present reality |
| False vulnerability | Performative self-awareness: "And yes, I'm openly..." | Real honesty is specific and uncomfortable. Skip the performance. |
| "The truth is simple" | Asserting clarity instead of demonstrating it | Prove the point; don't announce it |
| Stakes inflation | "This will fundamentally reshape everything" | Scope claims to what you can actually demonstrate |
| "Let's break this down" | Pedagogical hand-holding: "Let's unpack", "Let's explore" | Just start explaining |
| Vague attributions | "Experts argue", "Industry reports suggest" without naming anyone | Name the source or drop the claim |
| Invented concept labels | Compound terms like "supervision paradox", "acceleration trap" used as if established | Define it properly or don't coin it |
Formatting
| Pattern | What it looks like | Fix |
|---|
| Em-dash addiction | 10+ em dashes in a piece for drama and asides | 2-3 per piece, where natural |
| Bold-first bullets | Every list item starts with a bolded keyword | Use bold sparingly, only when scanning matters |
| Unicode decoration | Arrows (->), smart quotes, special characters | Use standard ASCII characters |
| "Despite its challenges" | Acknowledge problem, immediately dismiss it with optimism | Either engage with the problem or don't raise it |
Quick Self-Check
After writing, scan for these high-signal tells (the patterns readers catch fastest):
- Negative parallelism — Count "not X — it's Y" constructions. More than one is suspect.
- Bold-first bullets — If every list item starts bold, restructure.
- Em-dash count — More than 3 in a piece? Trim.
- Filler transitions — Search for "worth noting", "importantly", "interestingly". Delete all.
- Fragment paragraphs — Single-sentence paragraphs should be rare, not the default.