| name | avoid-ai-writing |
| description | Audit and rewrite content to remove AI writing patterns ("AI-isms"). Use this skill when asked to "remove AI-isms," "clean up AI writing," "edit writing for AI patterns," "audit writing for AI tells," or "make this sound less like AI." Supports a detection-only mode that flags patterns without rewriting. |
| version | 3.4.0 |
| license | MIT |
| compatibility | Any AI coding assistant that supports agentskills.io SKILL.md format (Claude Code, Cursor, VS Code Copilot, Hermes Agent, OpenHands, etc.) or OpenClaw. No external tools or APIs required. |
| metadata | {"author":"Conor Bronsdon","tags":"writing editing voice quality","agentskills_spec":"1.0","openclaw":{"emoji":"✍️"}} |
Avoid AI Writing — Audit & Rewrite
You are editing content to remove AI writing patterns ("AI-isms") that make text sound machine-generated.
What this skill is and isn't
This is a writing-quality tool, not a verdict. The patterns flagged here are statistically more common in LLM output, but humans on autopilot — especially writing under deadline pressure, in unfamiliar genres, or in a second language — produce the same shapes. Independent audits of commercial AI detectors have found false-positive rates above 60% on non-native English writers (Liang et al., Stanford, Patterns 2023) and overall misclassification rates above 70% on open-source detectors (Jabarian & Imas, BFI Working Paper 2025-116, 2025). Adversarial paraphrase reduces detection accuracy by ~88% across every method tested (arXiv:2506.07001, 2025).
The patterns are useful as a signal — both for cleaning up your own writing and for assessing whether a piece reads as AI-generated. Just don't make them the sole basis for a consequential decision (academic integrity, hiring, publication, attribution). Several rules here also fire on second-language writing, deadline-pressed humans, and technical genres that compress vocabulary by design. Pair the signal with context: who wrote it, what genre, what the writer's normal voice looks like, what other evidence you have.
In short: signals, not proof. Worth acting on; not worth ruining someone's day over.
Modes
This skill operates in one of two modes:
rewrite (default) — Flag AI-isms and rewrite the text to fix them.
detect — Flag AI-isms only. No rewriting. Use this mode when:
- The writer wants to see what's flagged and decide what to fix themselves
- The flagged patterns might be intentional (AI patterns aren't always bad — they can be effective in small doses)
- You're auditing text you don't want altered (published content, someone else's writing, reference material)
- You want a quick scan without waiting for a full rewrite
Trigger detect mode when the user says "detect," "flag only," "audit only," "just flag," "scan," "what AI patterns are in this," or similar. Default to rewrite mode if not specified.
In rewrite mode, your job is to:
- Audit it: identify every AI-ism present, citing the specific text
- Rewrite it: return a clean version with all AI-isms removed
- Show a diff summary: briefly list what you changed and why
In detect mode, your job is to:
- Audit it: identify every AI-ism present, citing the specific text
- Assess it: note which flags are clear problems vs. patterns that may be intentional or effective in context
What to remove or fix
Formatting
- Em dashes (— and --): Replace with commas, periods, parentheses, or rewrite as two sentences. Target: zero. Hard max: one per 1,000 words. This applies to headings and section titles too, not just body prose. Catch both the Unicode em dash (—) and the double-hyphen substitute (--).
- Bold overuse: Strip bold from most phrases. One bolded phrase per major section at most, or none. If something's important enough to bold, restructure the sentence to lead with it instead.
- Emoji in headers: Remove entirely. No
## 🚀 What This Means. Exception: social posts may use one or two emoji sparingly — at the end of a line, never mid-sentence.
- Excessive bullet lists: Convert bullet-heavy sections into prose paragraphs. Bullets only for genuinely list-like content (feature comparisons, step-by-step instructions, API parameters).
Sentence structure
- "It's not X — it's Y" / "This isn't about X, it's about Y": Rewrite as a direct positive statement. Max one per piece, and only if it serves the argument.
- Hollow intensifiers: Cut
genuine, real (as in "a real improvement"), truly, quite frankly, to be honest, let's be clear, it's worth noting that. Just state the fact.
- Vague endorsement ("worth [verb]ing"): Cut or replace
worth reading, worth paying attention to, worth a look, worth exploring, worth checking out, worth your time. These substitute a generic thumbs-up for a specific reason. Say why something matters instead.
- Hedging: Cut
perhaps, could potentially, it's important to note that, to be clear. Make the point directly.
- Missing bridge sentences: Each paragraph should connect to the last. If paragraphs could be rearranged without the reader noticing, add connective tissue.
- Compulsive rule of three: Vary groupings. Use two items, four items, or a full sentence instead of triads. Max one "adjective, adjective, and adjective" pattern per piece.
Words and phrases to replace
Words are organized into three tiers based on how reliably they signal AI-generated text. This tiered approach — adapted from brandonwise/humanizer's vocabulary research — reduces false positives on words that are fine in isolation but suspicious in clusters.
- Tier 1 — Always flag. These words appear 5–20x more often in AI text than human text. Replace on sight.
- Tier 2 — Flag in clusters. Individually fine, but two or more in the same paragraph is a strong AI signal. Flag when they appear together.
- Tier 3 — Flag by density. Common words that AI simply overuses. Only flag when they make up a noticeable fraction of the text (roughly 3%+ of total words).
Tier 1 — Always replace
| Replace | With |
|---|
| delve / delve into | explore, dig into, look at |
| landscape (metaphor) | field, space, industry, world |
| tapestry | (describe the actual complexity) |
| realm | area, field, domain |
| paradigm | model, approach, framework |
| embark | start, begin |
| beacon | (rewrite entirely) |
| testament to | shows, proves, demonstrates |
| robust | strong, reliable, solid |
| comprehensive | thorough, complete, full |
| cutting-edge | latest, newest, advanced |
| leverage (verb) | use |
| pivotal | important, key, critical |
| underscores | highlights, shows |
| meticulous / meticulously | careful, detailed, precise |
| seamless / seamlessly | smooth, easy, without friction |
| game-changer / game-changing | describe what specifically changed and why it matters |
| hit differently / hits different | (say what specifically changed, or cut) |
| utilize | use |
| watershed moment | turning point, shift (or describe what changed) |
| marking a pivotal moment | (state what happened) |
| the future looks bright | (cut — say something specific or nothing) |
| only time will tell | (cut — say something specific or nothing) |
| nestled | is located, sits, is in |
| vibrant | (describe what makes it active, or cut) |
| thriving | growing, active (or cite a number) |
| despite challenges… continues to thrive | (name the challenge and the response, or cut) |
| showcasing | showing, demonstrating (or cut the clause) |
| deep dive / dive into | look at, examine, explore |
| unpack / unpacking | explain, break down, walk through |
| bustling | busy, active (or cite what makes it busy) |
| intricate / intricacies | complex, detailed (or name the specific complexity) |
| complexities | (name the actual complexities, or use "problems" / "details") |
| ever-evolving | changing, growing (or describe how) |
| enduring | lasting, long-running (or cite how long) |
| daunting | hard, difficult, challenging |
| holistic / holistically | complete, full, whole (or describe what's included) |
| actionable | practical, useful, concrete |
| impactful | effective, significant (or describe the impact) |
| learnings | lessons, findings, takeaways |
| thought leader / thought leadership | expert, authority (or describe their actual contribution) |
| best practices | what works, proven methods, standard approach |
| at its core | (cut — just state the thing) |
| synergy / synergies | (describe the actual combined effect) |
| interplay | relationship, connection, interaction |
| in order to | to |
| due to the fact that | because |
| serves as | is |
| features (verb) | has, includes |
| boasts | has |
| presents (inflated) | is, shows, gives |
| commence | start, begin |
| ascertain | find out, determine, learn |
| endeavor | effort, attempt, try |
| keen (as intensifier) | interested, eager, enthusiastic (or cut — just state the interest) |
| symphony (metaphor) | (describe the actual coordination or combination) |
| embrace (metaphor) | adopt, accept, use, switch to |
Tier 2 — Flag when 2+ appear in the same paragraph
These words are legitimate on their own. When two or more show up together, the paragraph likely needs a rewrite.
| Replace | With |
|---|
| harness | use, take advantage of |
| navigate / navigating | work through, handle, deal with |
| foster | encourage, support, build |
| elevate | improve, raise, strengthen |
| unleash | release, enable, unlock |
| streamline | simplify, speed up |
| empower | enable, let, allow |
| bolster | support, strengthen, back up |
| spearhead | lead, drive, run |
| resonate / resonates with | connect with, appeal to, matter to |
| revolutionize | change, transform, reshape (or describe what changed) |
| facilitate / facilitates | enable, help, allow, run |
| underpin | support, form the basis of |
| nuanced | specific, subtle, detailed (or name the actual nuance) |
| crucial | important, key, necessary |
| multifaceted | (describe the actual facets, or cut) |
| ecosystem (metaphor) | system, community, network, market |
| myriad | many, numerous (or give a number) |
| plethora | many, a lot of (or give a number) |
| encompass | include, cover, span |
| catalyze | start, trigger, accelerate |
| reimagine | rethink, redesign, rebuild |
| galvanize | motivate, rally, push |
| augment | add to, expand, supplement |
| cultivate | build, develop, grow |
| illuminate | clarify, explain, show |
| elucidate | explain, clarify, spell out |
| juxtapose | compare, contrast, set side by side |
| paradigm-shifting | (describe what actually shifted) |
| transformative / transformation | (describe what changed and how) |
| cornerstone | foundation, basis, key part |
| paramount | most important, top priority |
| poised (to) | ready, set, about to |
| burgeoning | growing, emerging (or cite a number) |
| nascent | new, early-stage, emerging |
| quintessential | typical, classic, defining |
| overarching | main, central, broad |
| underpinning / underpinnings | basis, foundation, what supports |
Tier 3 — Flag only at high density
These are normal words. Only flag them when the text is saturated with them — a sign that AI filled space with vague praise instead of specifics.
| Word | What to do |
|---|
| significant / significantly | Replace some with specifics: numbers, comparisons, examples |
| innovative / innovation | Describe what's actually new |
| effective / effectively | Say how or cite a metric |
| dynamic / dynamics | Name the actual forces or changes |
| scalable / scalability | Describe what scales and to what |
| compelling | Say why it compels |
| unprecedented | Name the precedent it breaks (or cut) |
| exceptional / exceptionally | Cite what makes it an exception |
| remarkable / remarkably | Say what's worth remarking on |
| sophisticated | Describe the sophistication |
| instrumental | Say what role it played |
| world-class / state-of-the-art / best-in-class | Cite a benchmark or comparison |
Tier 3 phrases — Flag at density or in clusters
Multi-word boilerplate that's individually unobjectionable but stacks heavily in AI-generated content (crypto, web3, DePIN, AI/infra reviews are the worst offenders). Flag at 2+ uses of the same phrase (the per-phrase rule — lower threshold than single-word Tier 3 because a two-word match repeated twice is already stronger evidence than re-using "significant"), plus a cluster rule: three or more distinct phrases from this table in one piece is a strong signal even when each phrase only appears once — that's the shape LLMs take when they vary their own boilerplate to seem less repetitive.
| Phrase | What to do |
|---|
| emerging sector / emerging space / emerging category | Name the actual sector or what's emerging about it |
| the integration of (X with Y) | Describe what's being integrated and what changes for the user |
| the intersection of (X and Y) | Pick the specific overlap that matters or cut the framing |
| community-driven | Name what the community does. "Community-driven" alone is filler |
| long-term sustainability | Cite the time horizon and the constraint. "Long-term" is hand-waving |
| user engagement | Name the action. "Engagement" is a wrapper around clicks/comments/retention |
| decentralized compute | Specify the architecture or cut. The phrase has become a category label, not a claim |
| (sustainable) reward emissions | Cite the emission schedule and the sink |
| tokenized incentive structures | Describe the actual mechanism (vesting, gauge, bonded LP, etc.) |
| designed for long-term [X] | Cut "designed for" — either it is or it isn't. Then state the property |
Template phrases (avoid)
These slot-fill constructions signal that a sentence was generated, not written. If a phrase has a blank where a noun or adjective could go and still sound the same, it's too generic.
- "a [adjective] step towards [adjective] AI infrastructure" → describe the specific capability, benchmark, or outcome
- "a [adjective] step forward for [noun]" → same rule: say what actually changed
- "Whether you're [X] or [Y]" → false-breadth construction. Pick the audience you're actually addressing, or cut. "Whether you're a startup founder or an enterprise architect" means nothing — it's just "everyone."
- "I recently had the pleasure of [verb]-ing" → review/social AI pattern. Just say what happened: "I talked to," "I read," "I attended."
Transition phrases to remove or rewrite
- "Moreover" / "Furthermore" / "Additionally" → restructure so the connection is obvious, or use "and," "also," "on top of that"
- "In today's [X]" / "In an era where" → cut or state specific context
- "It's worth noting that" / "Notably" → just state the fact
- "Here's what's interesting" / "Here's what caught my eye" / "Here's what stood out" → reader-steering frames. Let the content signal its own importance. If you need a lead-in, make it specific: "The revenue number matters because..." not "Here's the interesting part."
- "In conclusion" / "In summary" / "To summarize" → your conclusion should be obvious
- "When it comes to" → just talk about the thing directly
- "At the end of the day" → cut
- "That said" / "That being said" → cut or use "but," "yet," or "however." Don't overuse any one of them.
Structural issues
- Uniform paragraph length: Vary deliberately. Include some 1-2 sentence paragraphs and some longer ones. If every paragraph is roughly the same size, fix it.
- Formulaic openings: If the piece opens with broad context before getting to the point ("In the rapidly evolving world of..."), rewrite to lead with the news or the insight. Context can come second.
- Suspiciously clean grammar: Don't sand away all personality. Deliberate fragments, sentences starting with "And" or "But," comma splices for effect: if the natural voice uses them, keep them.
Significance inflation
- Phrases like "marking a pivotal moment in the evolution of..." or "a watershed moment for the industry" inflate routine events into history-making ones. State what happened and let the reader judge significance.
- If the sentence still works after you delete the inflation clause, delete it.
Generic future-narrative closers
- "May become one of the most important narratives of the next market cycle," "could become the defining trend of the coming decade," "is poised to become the next major chapter in [X]." AI defaults to this shape when it needs to land a closing thought without committing to a falsifiable claim. The closer is grammatically a prediction but contains no testable content.
- Pattern: modal (may / could / will / is poised to) + "become" + (one of) the most [adjective] + (narrative / story / trend / theme / chapter / movement / force).
- Fix: pick the falsifiable version. "DePIN compute may exceed AWS spot pricing for embarrassingly parallel workloads by 2027" is a prediction. "The intersection of AI and DePIN may become one of the most important narratives of the next market cycle" is not.
Hedge-stacked predictions
- Stacking a modal with a hedge adverb: "could potentially create," "may eventually unlock," "might ultimately transform." Either word alone is acceptable; the stack is the tell. Each hedge cancels the next, leaving a sentence that asserts nothing while sounding cautious and thoughtful.
- Fix: pick one. If you mean "could create," say that. If you mean "potentially creates," say that. Both together is filler.
"Real/actual" adjective inflation
- "Real on-chain tokenomics," "actual reward sustainability," "genuine utility," "true product-market fit." Using
real / actual / genuine / true as an empty intensifier on an abstract noun implies the rest of the field is fake or superficial — without naming what makes this instance the real one. Common in crypto/AI/web3 content where the writer wants to signal sophistication.
- Distinct from the existing "hollow intensifiers" rule (genuine / truly / quite frankly as sentence-level hedges). This is the noun-modifier form.