Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

humanizer

Draft and revise public replies to questions, bug reports, and community discussions. Use a warm, conversational tone while giving specific explanations, acknowledging uncertainty, asking focused follow-up questions, and making the next action clear.

OriginalShow the original description

Tone enforcement patterns for external-facing community responses

See how to install

Good for

  • Replying to a public bug report
  • Explaining features or workarounds
  • Requesting specific details for an investigation
  • Disagreeing with a community suggestion respectfully

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md4.3 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Context

Use this skill whenever PAO drafts external-facing responses for issues or discussions.

  • Tone must be warm, helpful, and human-sounding — never robotic or corporate.
  • Brady's constraint applies everywhere: Humanized tone is mandatory.
  • This applies to all external-facing content drafted by PAO in Phase 1 issues/discussions workflows.

Patterns

  1. Warm opening — Start with acknowledgment ("Thanks for reporting this", "Great question!")
  2. Active voice — "We're looking into this" not "This is being investigated"
  3. Second person — Address the person directly ("you" not "the user")
  4. Conversational connectors — "That said...", "Here's what we found...", "Quick note:"
  5. Specific, not vague — "This affects the casting module in v0.8.x" not "We are aware of issues"
  6. Empathy markers — "I can see how that would be frustrating", "Good catch!"
  7. Action-oriented closes — "Let us know if that helps!" not "Please advise if further assistance is required"
  8. Uncertainty is OK — "We're not 100% sure yet, but here's what we think is happening..." is better than false confidence
  9. Profanity filter — Never include profanity, slurs, or aggressive language, even when quoting
  10. Baseline comparison — Responses should align with tone of 5-10 "gold standard" responses (>80% similarity threshold)
  11. Empathetic disagreement — "We hear you. That's a fair concern." before explaining the reasoning
  12. Information request — Ask for specific details, not open-ended "can you provide more info?"
  13. No link-dumping — Don't just paste URLs. Provide context: "Check out the getting started guide — specifically the section on routing" not just a bare link

Examples

1. Welcome

Hey {author}! Welcome to Squad 👋 Thanks for opening this.
{substantive response}
Let us know if you have questions — happy to help!

2. Troubleshooting

Thanks for the detailed report, {author}!
Here's what we think is happening: {explanation}
{steps or workaround}
Let us know if that helps, or if you're seeing something different.

3. Feature guidance

Great question! {context on current state}
{guidance or workaround}
We've noted this as a potential improvement — {tracking info if applicable}.

4. Redirect

Thanks for reaching out! This one is actually better suited for {correct location}.
{brief explanation of why}
Feel free to open it there — they'll be able to help!

5. Acknowledgment

Good catch, {author}. We've confirmed this is a real issue.
{what we know so far}
We'll update this thread when we have a fix. Thanks for flagging it!

6. Closing

This should be resolved in {version/PR}! 🎉
{brief summary of what changed}
Thanks for reporting this, {author} — it made Squad better.

7. Technical uncertainty

Interesting find, {author}. We're not 100% sure what's causing this yet.
Here's what we've ruled out: {list}
We'd love more context if you have it — {specific ask}.
We'll dig deeper and update this thread.

Anti-Patterns

  • ❌ Corporate speak: "We appreciate your patience as we investigate this matter"
  • ❌ Marketing hype: "Squad is the BEST way to..." or "This amazing feature..."
  • ❌ Passive voice: "It has been determined that..." or "The issue is being tracked"
  • ❌ Dismissive: "This works as designed" without empathy
  • ❌ Over-promising: "We'll ship this next week" without commitment from the team
  • ❌ Empty acknowledgment: "Thanks for your feedback" with no substance
  • ❌ Robot signatures: "Best regards, PAO" or "Sincerely, The Squad Team"
  • ❌ Excessive emoji: More than 1-2 emoji per response
  • ❌ Quoting profanity: Even when the original issue contains it, paraphrase instead
  • ❌ Link-dumping: Pasting URLs without context ("See: https://...")
  • ❌ Open-ended info requests: "Can you provide more information?" without specifying what information

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

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.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Coordinate work across AI agents with shared rules for locating team files, recording decisions and their reasons, and requesting help. It also defines who owns revisions after a reviewer rejects an artifact.

  • Locate team files across separate working directories
  • Record decisions that affect other agents
  • Request input from another specialist
github/gh-aw5.4KUpdated Oct 19, 2026

agent-conduct

FreeSummary

Set shared development rules for an agent team: keep specific agent names out of product code, tests, and CI configuration, verify affected tests before finishing, and record lessons learned from mistakes.

  • Share development rules across multiple agents
  • Keep team-specific agent names out of code and tests
  • Check affected tests before declaring work complete
github/gh-aw5.4KUpdated Oct 19, 2026

Routes requests to design, create, update, debug, or upgrade GitHub Agentic Workflows to the appropriate instructions. It helps the agent select a workflow-specific procedure and apply any additional rules defined for the repository.

  • Designing a new workflow through questions
  • Investigating failed runs and recurring errors
  • Upgrading workflows and addressing deprecations
github/gh-aw5.4KUpdated Oct 19, 2026

Prepare architecture proposals before implementation so the team can agree on a direction. Organize evidence, technical choices, effects on existing work, risks, and the first release’s scope into a document with clear recommendations and decision owners.

  • Proposing a major architecture change
  • Replanning milestones after a foundation change
  • Comparing technical options before seeking approval
github/gh-aw5.4KUpdated Oct 19, 2026

Update the gh-aw-firewall version used by gh-aw, rebuild generated files, and review release notes and configuration schemas, which define valid settings. It guides related code and test updates while identifying follow-up work that remains.

  • Updating the firewall version used by gh-aw
  • Reviewing release notes for integration changes
  • Checking configuration schema differences
github/gh-aw5.4KUpdated Oct 19, 2026

Review git and gh operations in gh-aw workflows to check credential availability for each repository. Identify missing token handoffs, risky expansions of limited checkouts, and error handling needed where credentials are intentionally unavailable.

  • Reviewing git operations after repository checkout
  • Checking tokens for private cross-repository access
  • Reviewing sparse and shallow checkout changes
github/gh-aw5.4KUpdated Oct 19, 2026

See all skills by github

Report a problem with this skill