Edit prose to remove formulaic AI phrasing, vague claims, inflated language, and repetitive structures. Apply context-appropriate tone to scientific papers, blog posts, and workplace documents, with review scores covering directness, rhythm, authenticity, and concision.
Remove AI writing patterns from prose. Use this skill when writing, drafting, editing, reviewing, or revising any text to eliminate predictable AI tells, slop, and formulaic patterns. Trigger this skill whenever the user asks to "deslop", "de-AI", "make it sound human," "remove AI patterns," "remove AI tropes," "clean up AI writing," fix "slop," "deslop" text, or review prose for authenticity. Also use when the user asks you to write or draft anything and wants it to sound natural rather than AI-generated. Common use cases include scientific writing (manuscripts, abstracts, cover letters, grant narratives, discussion sections, peer review responses), blog posts, newsletters, memos, reports, and any other substantial prose.
Run score Not tested
See how to installReview the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
Strip predictable AI patterns from writing. Make prose sound like a specific human wrote it, not like a language model generated it.
Remove throat-clearing openers ("Here's the thing:"), emphasis crutches ("Let that sink in."), business jargon ("navigate the landscape"), and meta-commentary ("In this section, we'll explore..."). See references/phrases.md for the full catalog.
Avoid binary contrasts ("Not X. Y."), negative listings ("Not a X. Not a Y. A Z."), dramatic fragmentation ("Speed. That's it. That's the tradeoff."), self-posed rhetorical questions ("The result? Devastating."), and anaphora/tricolon abuse. See references/structures.md for patterns and fixes.
Watch for the full catalog of AI writing tells: "quietly" and other magic adverbs, "delve" and its cousins, the "serves as" dodge, false ranges ("from X to Y" where the range is meaningless), superficial participle analyses ("highlighting its importance"), invented concept labels ("the supervision paradox"), grandiose stakes inflation, patronizing analogies, and false vulnerability. See references/tropes.md for the complete list with examples.
Prefer active constructions with named actors. "The complaint becomes a fix" is wrong. "The team fixed it" is right. If no specific person fits, use "we" in scientific prose or "you" in blog posts.
No vague declaratives ("The reasons are structural"). Name the specific thing. No lazy extremes ("every," "always," "never") doing vague work. No vague attributions ("Experts argue..."). If you cannot name the expert, you do not have a source.
In scientific writing, domain terminology is fine and expected. "Weighted interval score" is precise language, not jargon. The problem is business buzzwords ("leverage," "landscape," "ecosystem") and AI vocabulary tells ("delve," "tapestry," "nuanced") leaking into technical prose.
In blog posts and newsletters, put the reader in the room. "You" beats "People." Specifics beat abstractions. No narrator-from-a-distance voice.
In scientific writing, maintain appropriate formality. Use "we" for your own work, cite specific authors instead of "researchers have shown," and avoid both the distant narrator ("It has long been recognized that...") and the overly casual blog voice. State claims and back them with citations.
Mix sentence lengths. Two items beat three. End paragraphs differently. No em dashes. Do not stack short punchy fragments for manufactured emphasis. Do not write listicles disguised as prose ("The first wall... The second wall...").
State facts directly. Skip softening, justification, hand-holding. No "Let's break this down." No "Think of it as..." No pedagogical voice unless the audience genuinely needs it. No fractal summaries (telling the reader what you are about to say, saying it, then summarizing what you said).
No bold-first bullets (every list item starting with a bolded keyword). No unicode arrows. No em dashes. No signposted conclusions ("In conclusion..."). No "Despite these challenges..." formulas. These are strong AI signals.
One point per section. Do not restate the same argument in ten different ways across thousands of words. Do not beat a single metaphor to death. Do not stack historical analogies for false authority ("Apple didn't build Uber. Facebook didn't build Spotify...").
Run these before delivering any prose:
When reviewing text, rate 1-10 on each dimension:
| Dimension | Question |
|---|---|
| Directness | Statements or announcements? |
| Rhythm | Varied or metronomic? |
| Trust | Respects reader intelligence? |
| Authenticity | Sounds like a specific human wrote it? |
| Density | Anything cuttable? |
Below 35/50: revise.
Consult these for detailed catalogs when writing or editing:
See references/examples.md for before/after transformations.
Quick inline example (scientific writing):
Before:
"It's worth noting that these findings have important implications for how we navigate the challenges of forecast ensembling moving forward. Despite these challenges, this work contributes meaningfully to the growing body of literature, highlighting the need for continued evaluation."
After:
"If individual model rankings are unstable across geography and time, ensemble methods that weight models by past performance may not improve on equal-weight approaches."
Changes: Replaced filler transition, vague declarative, "despite these challenges" formula, and superficial participle analysis with the specific implication.
Quick inline example (blog post):
Before:
"Here's the thing: most bioinformatics pipelines break in production. Not because the code is bad. Because the data is bad. Let that sink in."
After:
"Most bioinformatics pipelines break in production. The code runs fine. The data doesn't match the assumptions baked into it."
Changes: Removed opener, binary contrast, and emphasis crutch. Named the specific problem.
No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.
No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.
No comments yet. Be the first to write one.
Turn a broad research idea into clear, testable questions. Compare familiar and less conventional approaches, structure the selected question around its population and methods, and assess variables, feasibility, and potential theoretical contributions.
Helps build a research framework by comparing theories, mapping relationships between variables, and deriving testable hypotheses. Explores less conventional options, examines weaknesses and competing explanations, and produces diagrams with anticipated reviewer objections.
Clarify the philosophical assumptions behind a research project and check whether they fit the proposed methods. Get a reasoned research stance, draft proposal wording, and guidance for explaining how the researcher's background and values shape the study.
Plan and draft academic papers through specialized agent roles covering literature, arguments, citations, and review. Get chapter guidance, revision roadmaps, Traditional Chinese and English abstracts, and documents formatted as LaTeX, DOCX, PDF, or Markdown.
Turn a detailed outline into a philosophy or interdisciplinary manuscript. Draft chapters with repeated quality reviews, check terminology and arguments across sections, and prepare the manuscript, evaluation reports, abstract, and metadata for submission.
Simulate academic peer review through five reviewer roles tailored to the paper's field. Receive separate critiques, an editorial decision, and a prioritized revision roadmap, or check whether a revised manuscript addresses earlier comments.