| name | human-articles |
| description | Write technical articles, blog posts, and long-form content that reads like it was written by a human, not generated by AI. Use this skill when creating articles, tutorials, case studies, essays, or any written content where authenticity matters. Avoids common AI writing tells documented by Wikipedia and other sources. |
| license | MIT |
This skill guides creation of technical articles and long-form content that read authentically human. The output should feel like something written by a person explaining their experience to a friend, not content generated to fill space.
The user provides a topic, outline, notes, or raw information to turn into an article. They may specify audience, length, or publication context.
Writing Philosophy
Before writing, understand what makes AI writing detectable:
- Vocabulary tells: Overuse of words like "delve," "crucial," "landscape," "harness," "foster"
- Structural tells: Uniform paragraph lengths, excessive parallelism, formulaic transitions
- Tone tells: Hedging everything, lacking specific opinions, puffing importance of mundane details
- Format tells: Overuse of em dashes, bullet points for everything OR prose for everything
The goal is not to "hide" AI authorship but to produce genuinely good writing that happens to avoid these patterns.
Structural Rules
Use bullet points for:
- Lists of items, features, options, or signals
- Step-by-step changes or processes
- Before/after comparisons
- Key takeaways and lessons
- Technical specifications
Use prose for:
- Opening hooks and context-setting
- Narrative transitions between sections
- Emotional beats and personal reactions
- Closing thoughts and conclusions
Mix both within sections:
- Start with 1-2 sentences of prose context
- Break into bullets for details
- Return to prose for reflection or transition
Vocabulary Blacklist
NEVER use these words/phrases:
- delve, dive into, explore (as metaphors)
- crucial, pivotal, significant, notable, remarkably
- landscape, realm, paradigm, tapestry
- harness, leverage, utilize, facilitate
- foster, enable, empower
- "It's worth noting that..."
- "In today's world..." / "In the age of..."
- "When it comes to..."
- "At the end of the day..."
- "This is where X comes in..."
- "Let's unpack..."
Also avoid:
- Parallel negation overuse ("It's not X, it's Y" more than once per article)
- Em dashes for emphasis (limit to 1-2 per article total)
- Starting multiple sentences with "This" in sequence
Sentence Construction
Do:
- Vary sentence length aggressively (3 words to 30 words)
- Use fragments for emphasis ("No bot detector needed." / "Brutal.")
- Start sentences with "But," "And," "So" naturally
- Use contractions throughout (don't, isn't, can't, won't, I'd)
- Use "→" in bullets for cause/effect
Don't:
- Make every sentence roughly the same length
- Start consecutive sentences the same way
- Write paragraphs that are all the same size
- Hedge every claim with "may," "might," "could potentially"
Formatting Guidelines
Headers:
- Conversational, not formal ("What my bot was doing wrong" not "Problem Analysis")
- Questions work well as headers
- Keep them short (3-8 words)
Code blocks:
- Include real snippets when relevant
- Keep short (3-8 lines ideal)
- Add 1 sentence of context before explaining what it shows
Tables:
- Use for before/after comparisons with clear columns
- Use for data that genuinely needs tabular format
- Keep simple (3-4 columns max)
Bold:
- Bold key terms at start of bullet list items
- Bold numbered list headers ("1. Opening lines now vary")
- Don't bold for emphasis in prose—word choice should do that work
Tone Guidelines
Be direct:
- "This was killing me" not "This presented a significant challenge"
- "The patterns were obvious" not "Upon analysis, patterns emerged"
- State opinions without excessive hedging
Be specific:
- Include actual numbers (40%, 60-70%, 20+ templates)
- Include actual examples with real before/after text
- Name real things (tools, frameworks, specific features)
Be honest about uncertainty:
- "I don't have rigorous A/B test data"
- "I changed everything at once (not great experimental design)"
- Don't overclaim results
Show personality:
- Include reactions ("This surprised me," "Here's what clicked")
- Acknowledge tradeoffs and downsides
- Use humor sparingly but genuinely
Article Structure Template
# [Direct, intriguing title - states the thing, not "How to..." or "The Ultimate Guide"]
[1-2 paragraph hook: the problem + what you did about it]
[One line transition: "Here's what I found" or similar]
## [Discovery/insight section with conversational header]
[1-2 sentences context]
Key points:
- Bullet with details
- More details
- The insight that matters
[Brief prose reflection if needed]
## [Implementation/specifics section]
[Brief prose transition]
**1. First change**
Before: [concrete example]
After: [concrete example]
```code
// if relevant
2. Second change
[Continue pattern...]
Results
[Brief caveat about methodology if honest]
- Specific result 1
- Specific result 2
- What changed observably
Lessons / Takeaways
- Bold the principle. Brief explanation follows.
- Another principle. Explanation.
- Third principle. Explanation.
[Closing section - broader insight, not summary]
[2-3 paragraphs of prose with genuine reflection]
[Can include bullets if making multiple points]
[Final punchy line that lands the core idea]
TL;DR
Category 1:
Category 2:
Core insight:
- The one thing to remember
## Pre-Submission Checklist
Before delivering the article, verify:
- [ ] No vocabulary from the blacklist
- [ ] Mix of prose and bullets (not all one or the other)
- [ ] At least one specific number or percentage
- [ ] At least one concrete before/after example
- [ ] Sentence lengths visibly vary
- [ ] Headers are conversational
- [ ] Contractions used naturally throughout
- [ ] No more than 1-2 em dashes total
- [ ] Opening hook is about the problem/situation, not the topic abstractly
- [ ] Closing is a specific insight, not generic advice or summary
- [ ] Would a human actually write this sentence? (ask for each sentence that feels off)
**CRITICAL**: The test is not "does this avoid AI tells" but "does this read like something a specific person actually wrote." Every article should feel like it has a point of view, makes real claims, and was written by someone who cares about the topic.
