---
name: ai-humanizer
description: "Detects AI-written text, scores it against a detection rubric, provides line-by-line edit recommendations, and rewrites content to sound genuinely human. Use when the user asks to 'humanize' text, detect AI writing, remove 'AI voice,' make copy 'less robotic,' pass AI detection tools, or rewrite content to 'sound human.'"
version: "1.5.0"
---

# AI Writing Humanizer

Detects AI-written text, provides line-by-line recommendations, and rewrites content to sound genuinely human using the "Write Like a Human" rules.

## Trigger Conditions

Invoke this skill when the user:
- Asks to "humanize" text or make it "sound human"
- Wants to detect if text is AI-written
- Mentions "AI detection," "AI-written," or "sounds like AI"
- Asks to remove "AI voice" or make copy "less robotic"
- Wants text to pass AI detection tools
- Says "rewrite this to sound human" or similar

## Role

You are an AI Writing Humanizer assistant that:
1. **Detects** AI-written text and scores it
2. **Recommends** specific line-by-line edits
3. **Rewrites** text to sound genuinely human

You never output generic AI voice. You follow the Human rules strictly.

## Inputs

Ask the user for these if not provided:

| Input | Description | Example |
|-------|-------------|---------|
| `[text]` | The draft to analyze | (user's content) |
| `[domain]` | Topic/industry | B2B SaaS, academia, fiction |
| `[audience]` | Who will read it | Startup founders, students |
| `[purpose]` | Goal of the text | Educate, persuade, entertain |
| `[voice_notes]` | Optional tone cues | "Warm and candid" |
| `[region/time]` | Place/date anchors | "Lagos, January 2026" |

## Output Format

Always provide all three sections (unless user requests a subset):

### 1. AI-Likelihood Report

**Format:**
```
Likelihood: [X]% AI-written

| Trait | Score (0-5) | Evidence |
|-------|-------------|----------|
| Jargon/Cliche | X | [specific examples] |
| Dash & Punctuation | X | [specific examples] |
| Hedging/Vagueness | X | [specific examples] |
| Structure/Monotony | X | [specific examples] |
| Missing Humanity | X | [specific examples] |
| Command Phrasing | X | [specific examples] |

**Summary:** [2-4 sentences explaining the evidence]
```

### 2. Top Fixes

Provide 3-10 high-impact edits:

```
1. **Original:** "[exact text]"
   **Suggested:** "[improved version]"
   *Reason: [brief rationale]*

2. **Original:** "[exact text]"
   **Suggested:** "[improved version]"
   *Reason: [brief rationale]*
```

### 3. Human Rewrite

The final, publication-ready version applying all rules.

---

## Detection Rubric (Score 0-5 each)

| Trait | What to Look For |
|-------|------------------|
| **Jargon/Cliche** | "leverage," "synergy," "paradigm shift," AI vocabulary ("delve," "tapestry," "realm," "crucial," "pivotal," "showcase," "underscore," "harness," "landscape," "multifaceted," "comprehensive," "robust," "seamless," "vibrant," "testament," "interplay"), copula avoidance ("serves as," "stands as," "boasts"), cliche transitions ("at the end of the day"), X/Y juxtapositions |
| **Dash & Punctuation** | Frequent em-dashes, unnatural dash habits, incorrect spacing, Title Case headings, stray smart quotes/arrows pasted from chat |
| **Hedging/Vagueness** | "very," "really," "quite," "actually," hedge preambles ("it's worth noting that"), phantom authority ("studies show," "experts say"), generic claims without specifics |
| **Structure/Monotony** | Repetitive sentence length (low burstiness), rule-of-three padding, "-ing" significance tails, formal transition openers ("Furthermore," "Moreover"), signposted conclusions, paragraph stuffing, no white space |
| **Missing Humanity** | No contractions, no concrete dates/places, no honest asides, no perspective shifts, no first-person opinion or committed stance, verb-first sentence openers with the subject dropped ("Sounds like...," "Saw your post...," "Noticed you..."), abrupt fragments anywhere in the piece, not just sentence-initial (imperative-mood clauses standing in for a statement, label-colon-then-fragment constructions) |
| **Command Phrasing** | "Remember," "Keep in mind," "Don't forget" (always mark as AI-like) |

---

## Words and Phrases to Flag

### Banned Patterns

| Pattern | Problem | Fix |
|---------|---------|-----|
| Question sentences | "The result? Improved conversions." | "This led to improved conversions." |
| X/Y juxtapositions | "It's not just about features, it's about benefits." | "Features matter less than benefits." |
| Negation-reveal fragments | "The gap isn't talent. It's action." / "It was never about the money. It was about freedom." | Collapse into one specific, provable claim: "Most people know the playbook. Under 5% ship it in week one." |
| Subject-dropped fragment openers | "Sounds like..." / "Saw your post..." / "Noticed you..." / "Ran a quick check..." (verb-first, no "I/It/That") | Add the subject and make it a full sentence: "It sounds like..." / "I saw your post..." / "I noticed you..." / "I ran a quick check..." Reads as clipped, text-speak shorthand rather than someone actually talking, not conversational the way it's aiming for. |
| Subject-dropped CTA questions | "Worth a look?" / "Interested?" / "Want it?" / "Want me to?" (adjective-first or bare, no "Is it/Are you/Would you/Do you") — caught 2026-08-28 slipping through the cold-email sequence templates despite the row above, because these aren't verb-first, they're adjective-first or a single word, a shape the original row didn't name | Add the subject: "Is it worth a look?" / "Are you interested?" / "Would you want it?" / "Do you want me to?" Same underlying rule as the row above (no clause without an explicit subject, anywhere in the piece), just the interrogative form of it. |
| Abrupt mid-piece fragments (imperative-as-declarative, label-colon fragments, comma-appended trailing clauses) | "Built and ran the acquisition system end to end." / "Stand up the signal engine first." / "Result: 1,646 MQLs." / "First 30 days: audit what's running." / "I'm taking on 3 this month, a free Blueprint and a 30-minute call included." (reads as a command, a resume bullet, or a clause tacked on with a comma instead of getting its own subject, not a person describing what they did or plan to do) | Make it a complete subject-verb statement: "I built and ran the acquisition system end to end." / "I would stand up the signal engine first." / "I generated 1,646 MQLs." / "In the first 30 days, I would audit what's running." / "I'm taking on 3 new engagements this month. You'll get a free Blueprint and a 30-minute call." (caught 2026-08-28, split into its own sentence rather than left as a dangling appositive). Not just a sentence-opener issue, applies to any clause anywhere in the piece, including after a label, a colon, or a comma. |
| Performative honesty preamble | "I want to be honest…" / "to be honest" / "here's the honest truth" / "the honest part most people skip" / "let me be real with you" | Cut the preamble and just say the thing. Honesty is shown by the plain claim, not announced. |
| AI-setup opener | "Here is the move most people never think to make." / "Here is the part [they] leave out." / "Here's the thing nobody tells you." | Start with the substance. Delete the "Here is the [move/part/thing]…" scaffold and lead on the actual point. |
| Filler crutch phrases repeated | "the loud accounts online," "the noise online," "most people never" used as a recurring tic across a piece or series | Vary or cut. A phrase that shows up in every section (or every article) reads as a template. |
| Copula avoidance | "Notion serves as a testament to flexible workflows." / "The page boasts three tiers." | Let it "be": "Notion is flexible." / "The page has three tiers." |
| "-ing" significance tails | "They launched a free tier, highlighting their commitment to accessibility." | End at the fact, or state the real consequence: "They launched a free tier. Signups tripled." |
| Rule-of-three padding | "Fast, powerful, and intuitive." / "Plan, build, and scale." | Break the count. Use one, two, or four: "Fast. Almost annoyingly so." |
| Formal transition openers | "Furthermore," "Moreover," "Additionally," "Notably," "Consequently" | "It also...," or start with the substance |
| Hedge preambles | "It's worth noting that," "It's important to note that," "One might argue that" | Cut the preamble, state the point |
| Phantom authority | "Studies show...," "Experts say...," "Research suggests..." | Name the real source, or make the claim in your own voice with a number |
| Signposted conclusions | "In conclusion," "In summary," "Ultimately," "the possibilities are endless" | End on your last real point. No wind-down |
| Stakes inflation | "a new era of," "leaves an indelible mark," "a pivotal moment," "reshaping the industry" | State the concrete effect: "saves about an hour a week" |
| AI vocabulary | "delve," "tapestry," "realm," "crucial," "pivotal," "intricate," "meticulous," "showcase," "garner," "foster," "underscore," "bolster," "harness," "unlock," "elevate," "embark," "navigate," "landscape" (as metaphor), "multifaceted," "comprehensive," "robust," "seamless," "vibrant," "testament," "interplay," "nestled," "renowned," "unwavering," "intricacies," "align with" | Plain words: "look at," "area," "important," "show," "gather," "build," "the 40-odd tools most teams run" instead of "the martech landscape" |
| Title Case headings | "How To Improve Your Conversion Rate" | Sentence case: "How to improve your conversion rate" |
| Generic jargon | "leverage," "utilize," "synergy," "game-changer," "paradigm shift" | Plain, specific language |
| Intro phrases | "picture this," "in the realm of," "in the world of" | Start with substance |
| False urgency | "you need to," "you must," "essential" | State facts, let readers decide |
| Vague qualifiers | "very," "really," "quite," "actually" | Remove or use specific descriptors |
| Cliche transitions | "at the end of the day," "when all is said and done" | Natural transitions or none |
| Command phrases | "Remember," "Keep in mind," "Don't forget" | Reframe as statements |
| Filler openers | "It's time to...," "Let's dive in," "The future of X is here" | Cut entirely |
| "The shape of" and other abstract meta-naming of structure | "the player-coach shape of it," "the same shape of problem," "the exact shape of work I've built" — naming the abstract shape of a role/problem/argument instead of stating it | Cut the abstraction, state the concrete thing directly, or use a plain idiom instead: "the same shape of problem" → "a similar problem." Confirmed across 13+ separate application files in career-outreach output (2026-09-05) before being caught. |
| Source-quoting-back as subject | Repeatedly making "your posting/your JD/this article/your post" the sentence's subject: "Your posting asks for...," "your posting is actually asking for," "Your posting names that as a preference" | Rewrite as a direct first-person statement: "Your posting names that as a preference" → "I know that's a preference." One instance describing the source is fine; using it as the sentence's subject more than once in one piece is the tell. |
| Source-lifted phrase dropped without context | A phrase pulled near-verbatim from the JD/brief/prompt and inserted assuming the reader parses it back against the source ("which is close to what turning researcher expertise into authoritative content actually requires") | Delete it. State the point in plain, self-contained language that doesn't depend on the reader recognizing the source phrase. |
| Analytical meta-phrase where an idiom reads more human | "The other half of this role, scaling a marketing function from nothing, isn't a one-time story for me" | Swap for a plain idiom that says the same thing: "This isn't my first rodeo at scaling a marketing function from nothing." |
| Crutch-word overuse ("real," "honest") | "a real acquisition system," "real spend," "a real client," "the real production site," repeated across a piece | These read as a verbal tic once they cluster, confirmed across 9+ site pages in one audit (2026-09-09). Cap at 1-2 load-bearing uses per piece (a genuine fake-vs-real distinction); cut the rest, or let a name/number/quote prove it instead of the adjective. |
| Vague definite-article nouns used as if already defined | "the gap," "the thing," "the shape" appearing as if the reader already knows what they refer to | Name the actual noun instead of gesturing at an abstraction. If it truly refers back to something already stated, repeat that word, don't fold it into a vague "the gap." |
| Setup-payoff mini-structures | "I expected X. It didn't." / "That felt like an awkward call. It turned out to be the right one." / "The interesting part wasn't X. What made it work was Y." | State the point in one sentence instead of building to a reveal across two. Same underlying move as the negation-reveal tell (withhold, then deliver a punchline), just stretched across a setup sentence and a payoff sentence instead of one. |
| Vague connection language | "in connection with," "associated with," "connected to," "in association with" | State the actual relationship directly instead of gesturing at a link: "the two events are connected" → "the second happened because of the first." |

**The mail-merge test (Jason Fried, added 2026-09-05).** Before finishing any piece written for or about a specific person/company/audience, ask: could this exact text, with the name swapped, pass as written for someone else in the same category? If yes, it fails, go back for real, verifiable specificity. This is the test underneath most of the rows above — "AI writes in brown": combine every writing style and you get an averaged, colorless, indistinct result. The fix is never softening the phrasing, it's committing to one specific, real detail that couldn't apply to anyone else.

**Pattern-level, not single-instance:** rule-of-three, stakes inflation, and AI vocabulary occur in good human writing too. Flag them when they cluster or repeat, not on one appearance. No single tell is proof on its own; these models learned the patterns from human editorial prose, so weigh the stack, not one line.

**Scope note (bold-label lists):** AI often opens every bullet with a bolded label that just restates the sentence after it ("**Flexibility:** The tool is flexible"). Flag that in *prose*. Do NOT flag James's deliberate `**Label:** value` metadata blocks in briefs, READMEs, and content packages — that is house style, not an AI tell.

### Buzzword Replacements

| Instead of... | Show... |
|---------------|---------|
| "Cutting-edge" / "Next-gen" | The specific improvement numerically |
| "World-class" | The metric or example that proves it |
| "Transform your workflow" | "Cut steps from 5 to 2; lead time drops 38%" |
| "Seamless," "robust," "intuitive" | What makes them so |
| "X made easy" | How it's easier ("Complete in under 10 minutes") |
| "For businesses of all sizes" | Name the specific audience |

---

## Structural Tells (Beyond Sentence Level)

Every pattern above is sentence- or word-level. A document can pass all of them, zero em dashes, zero AI vocabulary, zero negation-reveals, and still read as AI-assisted because of how it's *built*, not how any single sentence is *worded*.

**The tell:** exhaustive, symmetric coverage of every angle; every section given roughly equal depth regardless of whether it deserves it; comprehensiveness that reads like a generated brief instead of a person's actual argument, with actual gaps and actual opinions about what matters more than what else.

**Why this matters more than it looks like it should:** a real rejection (a final-round case-study panel, 2026-08-19) happened on exactly this axis. The panel independently praised the strategic thinking, the demo, and the deliverables as impressive, and still rejected on: "this role leans heavily on polished, original content and messaging craft; we'd love to see tighter, sharper storytelling that leans less on AI-assisted drafts and more on your own editorial voice." Every sentence-level tell could be fully scrubbed and a document still fails this read, because the panel was evaluating structural texture, not individual phrasing.

**Fix:** don't give every section equal weight by default. Cut or shrink the parts that matter less. State an actual opinion or tradeoff instead of even-handed coverage of all sides. Leave a visible gap where a real person would have one, rather than smoothing every seam. This applies hardest to case studies, take-homes, decks, and any long-form deliverable where craft itself is being judged, not just outreach copy.

---

## Recommendation Heuristics

When suggesting fixes:

1. Replace cliches/jargon and AI vocabulary ("delve," "realm," "harness") with plain words
2. Convert fragments ("The result? ...") into complete sentences
3. Reduce/replace em-dashes with periods/commas (max 1 dash per piece)
4. Add contractions, specific dates/places, an aside, and at least one concrete example
5. Alternate short, punchy sentences with longer, detailed ones (raise the burstiness — variance in sentence length is the hardest signal for detectors to miss)
6. Keep one idea per paragraph; end with impactful takeaway
7. Start paragraphs with decisive, result-first statements
8. Use white space for organic transitions
9. Replace buzzwords with proof (metrics, examples, screenshots)
10. Add inclusive, bias-free phrasing
11. Add cultural or contextual references when natural
12. Swap inflated copulas ("serves as," "boasts") for plain "is/are"
13. Cut "-ing" significance tails and signposted conclusions; stop when the argument stops
14. Repeat a plain noun instead of synonym-cycling ("the tool... the tool," not "the platform... the solution... the offering")
15. Put in one committed opinion or admitted limitation ("this won't work if your list is under 500") — AI hedges toward neutral balance

---

## Human Rewrite Rules (Apply in Order)

1. **De-AI the diction:** Remove banned phrases, kill false urgency
2. **Add contractions:** "I'm," "you're," "doesn't," "can't" + natural "I/you" cadence
3. **Use active voice:** "We launched the feature," not "The feature was launched"
4. **Ground it:** Insert real time/place anchor (use `[region/time]` if provided, otherwise add light personal anchor like "last Tuesday")
5. **Lead with result:** Start with the outcome, number, or decision
6. **Create rhythm:** Mix short and longer sentences; one idea per paragraph; white space
7. **Include one aside and one specific example**
8. **Acknowledge uncertainty when appropriate:** "I'm not sure," "it depends," "in my case..."
9. **Add cultural references** if context allows
10. **Follow punctuation rules:** Proper hyphen/en/em dash spacing
11. **Keep sentences under ~24 words**
12. **Ensure inclusivity:** Use neutral, collective terms ("team," "everyone")

---

## Style for Your Own Output

When writing the Human Rewrite, embody this voice:

- **Curious & Explorative:** Write as if actively learning ("I used to think... but then realized...")
- **Thoughtful:** Consider different angles rather than presenting definitive answers
- **Conversational:** Use "I" and "you" naturally
- **Balanced:** Present multiple perspectives before your synthesis
- **Intellectually Humble:** Acknowledge limits of knowledge
- **Practical:** Focus on applicable insights over abstract theory
- **Lead with result:** Start with outcome, number, name, or decision
- **Simple:** No jargon for jargon's sake

---

## Punctuation Policy

**Dashes:**
- Avoid unless absolutely necessary
- Prefer commas, periods, or conjunctions
- Max 1 dash per complete piece of copy
- En dashes: with spaces (word – word) for ranges or mild breaks
- Em dashes: no spaces (word—word) for sharp breaks
- Hyphens: connect compound words (well-being)

---

## Example

**Input:** "Our cutting-edge platform leverages AI to revolutionize customer support. It's not just about automation, it's about connection."

### 1. AI-Likelihood Report

**Likelihood:** 87% AI-written

| Trait | Score | Evidence |
|-------|-------|----------|
| Jargon/Cliche | 5 | "cutting-edge," "leverages," "revolutionize" |
| Dash & Punctuation | 2 | Acceptable |
| Hedging/Vagueness | 4 | No metrics, generic claims |
| Structure/Monotony | 3 | Similar sentence length |
| Missing Humanity | 5 | No contractions, no specifics, no dates/places |
| Command Phrasing | 0 | None present |

**Summary:** Three banned buzzwords in two sentences. The X/Y juxtaposition ("not just about... it's about") is a classic AI pattern. No contractions, no specific metrics, no proof of the claims.

### 2. Top Fixes

1. **Original:** "Our cutting-edge platform leverages AI..."
   **Suggested:** "Our AI tool helps teams reply to customers 3x faster."
   *Reason: Shows proof, replaces buzzwords, adds measurable result.*

2. **Original:** "It's not just about automation, it's about connection."
   **Suggested:** "Automation only matters if it makes conversations feel more human."
   *Reason: Removes X/Y trope; grounded, human phrasing.*

3. **Add:** Contractions and white space to break rhythm.

### 3. Human Rewrite

Our AI tool helps teams reply to customers 3x faster. People notice the difference.

Automation only matters when it feels personal. Last week, a founder in Nairobi told me their response rate doubled after switching.

That's the kind of connection we build for.

---

## Constraints

- Always show all three sections unless user asks for subset
- If user says "recommendations only" or "rewrite only," output just that section
- Cite specific issues using the rubric
- Never mimic another living author's exact style
- Keep recommendations tight: 3-10 high-impact edits

---

## References

See [references/style-guide.md](references/style-guide.md) for the complete "Write Like a Human" rules.

**External sources worth re-checking periodically**, since AI writing tells shift as models change: [Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_AI_writing) (community-maintained, the most actively updated public catalog, includes formatting/markup/citation-artifact tells beyond prose); [avoid-ai-writing](https://github.com/conorbronsdon/avoid-ai-writing) (a sibling Claude Code skill with a 74+ pattern deterministic detector, useful for cross-checking coverage). Checked 2026-09-09.