Skill-Details

writing-humanize

Direct audit and rewrite workflow for authentic, human-sounding text.

ÜbereinstimmungDirektGeprüft für menschliches schreiben
Quelletstapler/dotfilesExterne Quelle
Gemeldete Installationen1Nur Popularitätssignal

Vor Nutzung prüfen

Die automatische Prüfung bewertet Relevanz, nicht Sicherheit oder Empfehlung. Lies vor der Nutzung die Quellanweisungen.

Gespeicherte Quellvorschau

SKILL.md

Dieser Auszug wurde bei der Prüfung gespeichert. Die externe Quelle enthält die vollständige und aktuelle Version.

---
name: writing-humanize
description: Review and rewrite text to reduce AI detection signals and increase authenticity. Flags overrepresented AI vocabulary, structural signatures (uniform paragraph lengths, formulaic openers/closers, transition-word overuse), burstiness flatness, hedging, abstract nominalizations, and missing specificity. Produces flagged audit with line-level rewrites. Use on cover letters, personal statements, blog posts, essays, and documentation where the author's voice must read as genuinely human.
---

# Writing Humanize

Audit text for AI detection signals and rewrite to increase authenticity, sentence-rhythm variation, and authorial specificity.

## When to Use This Skill

- Cover letters, personal statements, graduate school essays
- Blog posts or articles where voice and credibility matter
- Documentation written with AI assistance that needs a human editorial pass
- Any text being submitted to a platform with AI detection screening

## The Two Metrics That Drive AI Detection

GPTZero and similar detectors use two core signals:

**Perplexity** — how unpredictable each word choice is. AI runs low (predictable, safe word choices). Human writing surprises.

**Burstiness** — how much sentence-length complexity varies. AI runs flat. Humans alternate: a short punch. Then a long, clause-heavy sentence that builds toward something.

Both must improve. Fixing vocabulary without fixing rhythm leaves the structural fingerprint intact.

## Audit Protocol

Run in sequence. Flag every instance with location and rewrite suggestion.

### Step 1 — Vocabulary Scan

Check for flagged terms from `references/word-lists.md`:
- **Tier 1** (50–269× overrepresented): delve, realm, nuanced, multifaceted, tapestry, robust, pivotal, seamless, leverage, harness, underscore, testament, cutting-edge, intricate
- **Tier 2** (transition overuse): moreover, furthermore, additionally, it is worth noting
- **Em dash overuse**: flag every em dash where a comma or period would be natural

For each hit: identify the sentence, explain why it signals AI, offer a concrete replacement.

### Step 2 — Structural Signature Scan

Check paragraph-level patterns:

| Signal | What to Look For | Fix |
|--------|-----------------|-----|
| Uniform length | Every paragraph 3–5 sentences, similar word counts | Break one short (1–2 sentences). Expand one long. |
| Formulaic opener | "In today's rapidly evolving landscape..." or similar throat-clearing | Cut entirely or replace with a specific claim or scene |
| Formulaic closer | "In conclusion, it is clear that..." | End on a specific image, an open question, or a direct call |
| Transition-word boundary | moreover/furthermore starting 2+ consecutive paragraphs | Remove or replace with a direct pivot sentence |
| Participial opening overuse | 3+ sentences opening with a present participle ("Leveraging...", "Building on...") | Rewrite as declarative or imperative |

### Step 3 — Burstiness Check

Count sentence lengths (in words) across the full text. Calculate:
- Mean sentence length
- Longest sentence / shortest sentence ratio
- Run of 3+ consecutive sentences within 3 words of the mean (flat zone)

**Target**: ratio ≥ 3:1 (longest to shortest). Flat zones of 4+ sentences should be broken.

Report the distribution. Rewrite one flat zone as an example.

### Step 4 — Authenticity Scan

Check for tells that AI describes rather than experiences:

| Tell | Example | Fix |
|------|---------|-----|
| No anecdote / all abstract | "I have experience managing cross-functional teams" | Specific: who, when, what broke, what happened |
| Hedging density | might, could, arguably, it's important to note (>3 per 300 words) | Commit to the claim or cut it |
| Abstract nominalization | "implementation", "utilization", "optimization" hiding who did what | "We shipped", "Sarah rebuilt", "I cut latency by 40ms" |
| Positivity bias | No tension, no failure, no contradiction | Add one thing that went wrong or one position h
Vollständige Quelle auf GitHub lesen (öffnet externe Seite)
Kontext

Verwandte Arbeit