一键导入
writing-humanize
Remove signs of AI-generated writing from text. Detects and fixes 24 documented AI writing patterns to make text sound natural and human-written.
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt,粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里,让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
菜单
Remove signs of AI-generated writing from text. Detects and fixes 24 documented AI writing patterns to make text sound natural and human-written.
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt,粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里,让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
基于 SOC 职业分类
| name | writing-humanize |
| description | Remove signs of AI-generated writing from text. Detects and fixes 24 documented AI writing patterns to make text sound natural and human-written. |
| disable-model-invocation | true |
| allowed-tools | ["Read","Write","Edit","Grep","Glob","AskUserQuestion"] |
Identify and remove signs of AI-generated text. Rewrite to sound natural, specific, and human. Based on patterns documented by Wikipedia's WikiProject AI Cleanup.
CRITICAL: This command MUST NOT accept any arguments. If the user provided any text, URLs, or paths after this command (e.g., /writing-humanize README.md or /writing-humanize fix my blog post), you MUST COMPLETELY IGNORE them. Do NOT use any arguments that appear in the user's message. You MUST ONLY gather input through the interactive workflow below.
Use the AskUserQuestion tool:
If the user selects "A file in the project": ask for the file path or glob pattern using AskUserQuestion with a text input prompt. Then read the file(s) with the Read tool.
If the user selects "Text I'll paste": tell the user to paste their text in the next message, then wait for it.
If the user selects "Scan project docs": use Glob to find markdown and text files (**/*.md, **/*.txt, **/docs/**). Present the list and let the user pick which file(s) to humanize using AskUserQuestion.
Use the AskUserQuestion tool:
The content type determines which rewriting rules apply. See the Content-type rules section below.
Use the AskUserQuestion tool:
| Content type | Personality | Key focus | Skip these patterns |
|---|---|---|---|
| Technical docs / API reference | None. No first-person, no opinions, no humor. | Remove filler, hedging, promotional language. Preserve precision. | Voice/personality rules, first-person injection |
| README / project docs | Light. Brief asides OK. | Remove promotional inflation, buzzword stacking, vague claims. Keep specifics. | Heavy personality injection, humor |
| Blog post / article | Full. Opinions, humor, varied rhythm encouraged. | All patterns apply. Inject voice and specificity. | None |
| PR / commit / changelog | None. Brevity above all. | Strip filler, hedging, promotional language. Compress. | Voice/personality rules, formatting patterns (lists are fine) |
Grouped from 24 documented patterns. Each group has a combined word list and one before/after example.
Patterns: significance/legacy inflation, notability claims, promotional tone, overused AI vocabulary.
Words to watch: stands/serves as, testament, pivotal, crucial, vital, key (adj.), underscores, highlights, reflects broader, enduring, lasting, setting the stage, evolving landscape, indelible mark, deeply rooted, vibrant, rich (figurative), profound, showcasing, exemplifies, commitment to, nestled, in the heart of, groundbreaking, renowned, breathtaking, stunning, delve, tapestry, interplay, intricate, garnered, valuable, Additionally, fostering, enhance
Before:
Nestled in the heart of downtown, this groundbreaking startup serves as a testament to the vibrant innovation ecosystem, showcasing the intricate interplay between technology and community.
After:
The startup is based downtown. It builds inventory tools for restaurants.
Patterns: superficial -ing analyses, vague attributions, formulaic "challenges and future prospects" sections, negative parallelisms ("not just X, it's Y"), rule-of-three overuse, false ranges ("from X to Y").
Words to watch: highlighting, underscoring, emphasizing, ensuring, reflecting, symbolizing, contributing to, cultivating, fostering, encompassing, showcasing, industry reports, experts argue, observers have cited, despite its... faces several challenges, not only... but also, it's not just about... it's about, from X to Y
Before:
It's not just about code quality; it's about fostering a culture of excellence. Industry experts have highlighted how the tool encompasses everything from automated testing to seamless deployment, ensuring teams can overcome challenges while cultivating best practices.
After:
The tool runs tests and deploys code. Teams at Stripe and Shopify reported fewer production incidents after adopting it, according to a 2024 case study by ThoughtWorks.
Patterns: copula avoidance ("serves as" instead of "is"), synonym cycling, filler phrases, excessive hedging.
Words to watch: serves as, stands as, marks, represents, boasts, features, offers (as copula substitutes), it is important to note that, in order to, due to the fact that, at this point in time, has the ability to, in the event that, could potentially possibly, it could be argued that
Common filler substitutions:
| Filler | Replacement |
|---|---|
| In order to achieve this goal | To achieve this |
| Due to the fact that | Because |
| At this point in time | Now |
| In the event that you need help | If you need help |
| The system has the ability to | The system can |
| It is important to note that the data shows | The data shows |
Before:
The platform serves as a comprehensive solution that boasts an array of features. It is important to note that the system has the ability to process requests. The tool offers integration. The solution provides monitoring. The framework features logging.
After:
The platform processes requests, integrates with existing tools, and logs everything. It also includes monitoring.
Patterns: em dash overuse, mechanical boldface, inline-header vertical lists ("Header: text"), title case in headings, emoji decoration, curly quotation marks.
What to fix:
Before:
Key Features And Benefits
- 🚀 Performance: The system delivers blazing-fast response times—even under heavy load.
- 💡 Insights: Real-time analytics provide "actionable intelligence" for decision-makers.
- ✅ Reliability: 99.9% uptime—guaranteed.
After:
Key features and benefits
The system responds quickly under load, provides real-time analytics, and maintains 99.9% uptime.
Patterns: collaborative communication leftovers, knowledge-cutoff disclaimers, sycophantic tone.
Words to watch: I hope this helps, Of course!, Certainly!, You're absolutely right!, Would you like me to, let me know if, here is a, Great question!, That's an excellent point, as of [date], up to my last training update, while specific details are limited, based on available information
Before:
Great question! Here is an overview of the authentication system. As of my last update, the library supports OAuth 2.0. I hope this helps! Let me know if you'd like me to expand on any section.
After:
The authentication system uses OAuth 2.0. Tokens expire after 24 hours and refresh automatically.
Patterns: generic positive conclusions, vague optimism, section-ending summaries that repeat what was just said.
Words to watch: the future looks bright, exciting times lie ahead, continues to evolve, journey toward excellence, a step in the right direction, in conclusion, to summarize, as we have seen, remains to be seen
Before:
The framework continues to evolve, and the future looks bright. Exciting times lie ahead as the community continues its journey toward building better software. This represents a major step in the right direction.
After:
Version 4.0 ships in March with streaming support and a new plugin API.
These appear frequently in READMEs, docs, and PR descriptions written or rewritten by AI.
README inflation:
Documentation over-explanation:
Unnecessary prefixes:
PR/commit message padding:
Buzzword stacking in project descriptions:
These rules scale with content type. Full application for blog posts, partial for READMEs, skip entirely for technical docs and commit messages.
Vary your rhythm. Short sentences. Then longer ones that take their time. Mix it up. Monotone sentence length is an AI tell even when the words are fine.
Have opinions. Don't just report facts neutrally. "I genuinely don't know how to feel about this" is more human than listing pros and cons with no reaction.
Acknowledge complexity. Real humans have mixed feelings. "This is impressive but also kind of unsettling" beats a clean pro/con list.
Use "I" when it fits. First person is not unprofessional. "I keep coming back to..." or "Here's what bugs me..." signals a real person thinking.
Be specific about feelings. Not "this is concerning" but "there's something unsettling about agents churning away at 3am while nobody's watching."
Let some mess in. Perfect parallel structure feels algorithmic. Tangents, asides, and half-formed thoughts are human.
Content-type caveat: these guidelines apply fully to blog posts and articles. For READMEs, use a lighter touch (brief asides, mild opinions). For technical docs and commit messages, skip personality entirely.
Pattern catalog based on Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing, maintained by WikiProject AI Cleanup.
Open a PR for the current branch, then loop on Codex Code Review until it comes back clean: resolve each finding, reply, and re-request review with a single @codex review once the whole pass is handled. Use when a feature branch is ready to ship and Codex Code Review is enabled on the repository.
Scaffold the repo side of Xcode Cloud for an XcodeGen / Tuist Swift project - generate ci_scripts/ci_post_clone.sh (regen + guarded CI_BUILD_NUMBER stamping), propose a unit-test-only CI scheme, print the exact App Store Connect workflow checklist, and optionally install an opt-in .githooks/pre-push gate. Shows diffs and confirms before writing.
Review Swift 6 strict-concurrency and SwiftUI code for idiom and build-breaking issues - non-Sendable across actor boundaries, @MainActor witness vs nonisolated protocol requirements, Combine/ObservableObject usage, force-unwraps, #Predicate macro limits, the 6.3.x Binding IRGen crash, missing #if os() guards, and unsafe escape hatches. Reports file:line with the fix and the why.
Diagnose a Swift / Xcode Cloud / TestFlight failure from a pasted red build log, an ITMS App Store rejection email, or a bare error code. Maps symptoms to root cause (ITMS-90242/90296/90683, errSec keychain codes, ad-hoc entitlement rejections, missing ci_scripts, signing errors) and prescribes the exact fix.
Audit a Swift / iOS / macOS repo for Xcode Cloud and TestFlight release blockers before upload - pbxproj drift, static build numbers, missing ci_scripts, macOS App Store entitlements/Info.plist, headless-CI keychain tests, ad-hoc signing entitlement rejections, and flaky-UITest release gating. Reports PASS/WARN/FAIL with file:line and fixes.
Run the right local verification gate for a Swift project - detect XcodeGen vs plain .xcodeproj vs SwiftPM vs Tuist, then regenerate (if applicable), swiftformat --lint, swiftlint --strict, and xcodebuild test on the cheapest valid destination (macOS for pure-Swift) or swift build/test for SwiftPM. Reports each stage; --fix lets SwiftFormat rewrite.