Menú
Use when writing prose, blog posts, articles, essays, or any non-code text content — removes AI patterns and produces natural human writing
Instalar con Codex o Claude Copia este prompt, pégalo en Codex, Claude u otro asistente, y deja que revise la página de la skill y la instale por ti.
Basado en la clasificación ocupacional SOC
| name | human-writing |
| description | Use when writing prose, blog posts, articles, essays, or any non-code text content — removes AI patterns and produces natural human writing |
AI-generated text has recognizable patterns that make readers instinctively distrust it. This skill identifies and eliminates those patterns so the output reads like a real person wrote it.
Core principle: Human writing is irregular, opinionated, and specific. AI writing is smooth, balanced, and generic. Kill the smoothness.
These are the biggest AI tells. Never use them:
| Kill | Use instead |
|---|---|
| delve | dig into, look at, get into |
| landscape | (just drop it — "the security landscape" → "security") |
| robust | solid, strong, or just describe what makes it good |
| leverage | use |
| comprehensive | thorough, full, or drop it |
| crucial / vital | matters, important if you must |
| foster | build, grow, create |
| navigate | deal with, handle, figure out |
| underscores | shows, proves, means |
| multifaceted | complicated, messy |
| nuanced | (usually filler — cut the whole sentence) |
| pivotal | important, key |
| commendable | (don't praise — just state what happened) |
| noteworthy | (same — state the fact, let the reader decide) |
| intricate | complicated, messy, detailed |
| realm | area, world, space |
| tapestry | (never) |
| embark | start, begin |
| utilizing | using |
| encompass | cover, include |
| seamless | smooth, easy, or describe what makes it smooth |
| streamline | simplify, speed up |
| harness | use, take advantage of |
| spearhead | lead, start |
| bolster | strengthen, support |
| elevate | improve, raise |
| amplify | increase, spread |
| groundbreaking | new, first, or describe what's actually new |
| cutting-edge | new, latest |
| game-changing | (describe the actual change instead) |
| transformative | (same — show the transformation, don't label it) |
| revolutionary | (same) |
| meticulous | careful, thorough |
| aforementioned | (just name the thing again) |
| pertinent | relevant |
| holistic | (usually meaningless — cut it) |
| synergy | (never) |
| resonate | connect, stick, land |
| align | match, fit |
| empower | let, enable, give |
| unlock | enable, open up |
| supercharge | speed up, improve |
Emoji in articles, blog posts, and essays is an instant AI tell. Real writers don't sprinkle 🚀🔥💡✨ through their paragraphs. If you're writing a serious piece, zero emoji. If you're writing something casual (like a tweet or chat message), one or two max — and only if it adds meaning, not decoration.
Specific bans:
The AI template — almost all AI writing follows this skeleton:
Always exactly 3 main points — AI loves the number 3. Sometimes the answer is 2 things. Sometimes it's 7. Don't force everything into trinities.
Intro announces structure — "In this article, we will explore three key aspects of..." Just start talking about the thing.
Conclusion restates everything — AI always ends by summarizing what it just said. Humans end when they're done. The last point IS the ending. Or end with a concrete action. Or end mid-thought.
"In conclusion" / "To summarize" / "In summary" as final heading — If you need to label your conclusion, the essay failed. Just end it.
Every section roughly the same length — If your 4 sections are all ~300 words each, something is wrong. Some ideas need more space. Some need less.
Perfectly symmetrical organization — If section 2 has 3 sub-points, AI makes sections 1 and 3 also have 3 sub-points. Real writing is asymmetric.
Uniform paragraph length — all ~3-5 sentences. Humans write paragraphs of wildly different lengths.
Some paragraphs are one sentence.
Others go on for a while because the idea is complex and needs room to breathe, and maybe there's a tangent in there too because that's how thinking actually works — you don't always organize your thoughts into perfectly bite-sized chunks before you express them.
Topic sentence → support → transition, every time — This is the five-paragraph-essay formula. It works for school. It sounds robotic in real writing.
Every paragraph connects smoothly to the next — Sometimes you just... change the subject. That's fine. Readers can handle it.
Similar sentence lengths throughout — no rhythm variation. Real writing alternates. Short ones hit hard. Then longer ones build and develop and add nuance.
Excessive parallelism in lists — "X enables Y. Z enables W. A enables B." Same structure repeated makes it sound generated.
Starting consecutive sentences the same way — "This means... This allows... This ensures..." Vary your openings.
Always bullet points, never inline — Sometimes a list works better as a sentence: "You'll need a hammer, some nails, and questionable judgment."
Every bullet same length — Vary it. Some bullets are one word. Some are a sentence.
Exactly 3 or 5 items — Real lists have however many items the topic requires.
Bullets that each start with a bold keyword followed by colon and explanation — "Security: We ensure..." / "Performance: We optimize..." / "Scalability: We design..." This is the most AI-looking list format possible.
AI invents generic scenarios. Humans reference specific things — products, companies, experiences, cultural touchstones. Say "like the time Cloudflare took down half the internet" not "like when a major service provider experiences an outage."
"It's", "don't", "won't", "can't", "they're". Not "it is", "do not", "will not." Uncontracted prose in informal writing is an instant AI tell.
AI writes sentences of similar length. Humans don't.
Short ones hit hard.
Then sometimes you write a longer one that builds on the short one and adds context and maybe goes on a bit and that's fine because rhythm in writing comes from contrast, not from consistency.
Then short again.
AI hides behind passive voice and "we." Pick a side. "I think this is wrong" is better than "Some might argue there are potential concerns."
Sometimes things are bad. Say so. "This API is terrible" is more honest than "This API presents some challenges but also offers opportunities for creative solutions."
Read it out loud. If you wouldn't say it in a conversation, rewrite it. Specifically:
| Mistake | Fix |
|---|---|
| Overcorrecting into try-hard casualness ("Yo, let's talk about databases!") | Write like a smart person talking to another smart person. Casual ≠ juvenile. |
| Removing ALL structure | Structure is fine. Just don't use the same structure every time. |
| Forcing jokes | If a joke comes naturally, keep it. Don't insert humor on a schedule. |
| Replacing AI cliches with human cliches | "At the end of the day" is just as bad coming from a human. Say something specific instead. |
| Making everything angry/edgy to sound "authentic" | Opinions ≠ anger. You can disagree calmly. |
