本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

humanizer

Strip AI writing patterns from text. Checks 24 patterns across 4 categories (structural, lexical, rhetorical, formatting) with academic economics adaptation. This skill should be used on any text that reads too "AI-generated", or as a final pass on drafted sections. Triggers on "humanize", "de-AI", "make it sound natural", or "strip AI patterns".

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md4.8 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Humanizer

Strip AI writing patterns from academic text while preserving economics content and formal structure.

Input: $ARGUMENTS — path to file to humanize.


Workflow

Step 1: Read the File

Read the target file from $ARGUMENTS. Support .tex, .md, .txt, and .qmd files.

Step 2: Scan for AI Patterns

Check all 24 patterns across 4 categories:

Category 1: Structural Tics (6 patterns)

  1. Triplet lists — "X, Y, and Z" appearing 3+ times in a section
  2. Formulaic transitions — "Moreover", "Furthermore", "Additionally" as sentence starters
  3. Echo conclusions — final paragraph restates every point
  4. Uniform paragraph length — all paragraphs suspiciously similar in length
  5. Topic sentence + support — every paragraph follows identical structure
  6. Numbered/bulleted reasoning — "First... Second... Third..." in prose

Category 2: Lexical Tells (6 patterns)

  1. "Delve" — almost never used by humans in academic writing
  2. "Landscape" — as metaphor ("the policy landscape")
  3. "Crucial/pivotal/vital" — overused intensifiers
  4. "Multifaceted" — AI favourite
  5. "Underscores" — as verb ("this underscores the importance")
  6. "Navigate" — metaphorical ("navigate the challenges")

Category 3: Rhetorical Patterns (6 patterns)

  1. Excessive hedging — "it is worth noting", "interestingly", "arguably"
  2. Performative enthusiasm — "fascinating", "remarkable", "exciting"
  3. False balance — "while X, it is also true that Y" for every claim
  4. Hollow acknowledgment — "this raises important questions" without answering them
  5. Premature synthesis — summarising before enough evidence is presented
  6. Universal agreement — "scholars agree", "it is widely recognised"

Category 4: Formatting Tells (6 patterns)

  1. Over-signposting — "In this section, we will discuss..."
  2. Excessive parallelism — every sentence in a list has identical structure
  3. Definitional opening — starting sections with dictionary-style definitions
  4. Disclaimer stacking — multiple caveats before making a point
  5. Summary before content — "This section covers X, Y, and Z" at the start
  6. Colon-list pattern — "There are three key factors: (1)... (2)... (3)..."

Step 3: Apply Fixes

For each detected pattern:

  1. Identify the specific instance with line number
  2. Rewrite to sound more natural/human
  3. Preserve the academic content and meaning

Academic Economics Adaptation Rules

  • Preserve formal structure where genuinely needed (equations, proofs, identification arguments)
  • Keep technical terms — do not simplify econometric vocabulary (heteroskedasticity-robust, LSOA fixed effects, hedonic pricing, etc.)
  • Maintain citation density — do not remove scholarly references
  • Vary sentence structure — mix short and long, simple and complex
  • Allow imperfection — real writing has slight asymmetries and personality
  • Respect economics conventions — "we estimate", "we find", "column (3) shows" are standard, not AI patterns
  • Keep LaTeX intact — do not modify \textcite{}, \parencite{}, \label{}, \ref{}, or equation environments

Step 4: Report Changes

Present a summary of changes:

## Humanizer Report: [filename]
**Patterns found:** N / 24
**Changes made:** N

| # | Pattern | Category | Location | Change |
|---|---------|----------|----------|--------|
| 1 | Triplet lists | Structural | Section 3, para 2 | Varied list lengths |
| 2 | "Delve" | Lexical | Line 47 | Replaced with "examine" |
...

Step 5: Save

Overwrite the original file with the humanised version (the user can review via git diff).


Principles

  • Preserve meaning. The content must be identical — only the expression changes.
  • Do not over-correct. Some formal academic patterns are normal, not AI tells.
  • Context-aware. "Moreover" in a proof derivation is fine. "Moreover" as every paragraph opener is not.
  • Reversible. User can always git checkout to undo.
  • Light touch for good writing. If only 2-3 patterns found, the text is probably fine. Focus effort on heavily AI-patterned text.
  • Economics-aware. Standard economics phrasing ("we exploit variation in...", "we instrument...") is conventional, not AI-generated.

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

a1

無料

VS-Enhanced Research Question Refiner - Prevents Mode Collapse and derives differentiated research questions Enhanced VS 3-Phase process: Modal question avoidance, alternatives presentation, differentiated RQ recommendation Use when: refining research ideas, formulating research questions, clarifying scope Triggers: research question, 연구 질문, PICO, SPIDER, research idea

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4,5972026年10月12日 更新

a2

無料

VS-Enhanced Theoretical Framework Architect with Critique & Visualization Full VS 5-Phase process: Modal theory avoidance, Long-tail exploration, differentiated framework presentation Absorbed A3 (Devil's Advocate) critique and A6 (Conceptual Framework Visualizer) capabilities Use when: building theoretical foundations, designing conceptual models, deriving hypotheses, critiquing frameworks, visualizing models Triggers: theoretical framework, 이론적 프레임워크, conceptual model, 개념적 모형, hypothesis derivation, critique, devil's advocate, 반론, visualization, diagram

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4,5972026年10月12日 更新

a5

無料

Agent A5 - Paradigm & Worldview Advisor - Philosophical foundations for research design. Covers ontology, epistemology, axiology, and methodology alignment. Use when: establishing philosophical foundations, justifying methodological choices, writing positionality statements Triggers: paradigm, 패러다임, ontology, epistemology, worldview, 세계관, philosophical foundations, 철학적 기초

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4,5972026年10月12日 更新

Academic paper writing skill with 12-agent pipeline. v2.5: Style Calibration (learn author's writing voice from past papers) + Writing Quality Check (writing quality checklist for natural prose). Supports IMRaD, literature review, theoretical, case study, policy brief, and conference paper structures. APA 7.0 (default), Chicago, MLA, IEEE, Vancouver citation formats. Bilingual abstracts (zh-TW + EN). Multi-format output (LaTeX, DOCX, PDF, Markdown). Triggers on: write paper, academic paper, paper outline, write abstract, revise paper, check citations, convert to LaTeX, guide my paper, parse reviews, revision roadmap, 寫論文, 學術論文, 論文大綱, 寫摘要, 修改論文, 檢查引用, 引導我寫論文, 帶我規劃論文, 逐章規劃, 論文架構, 審查意見, 修訂路線圖.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4,5972026年10月12日 更新

Systematic writing framework for philosophy and interdisciplinary academic papers from optimized outline to submission-ready manuscript. Use when users want to: (1) write a paper from a detailed outline, (2) ensure quality control during writing, (3) maintain consistency across chapters, (4) prepare a submission-ready manuscript, or (5) systematically execute a planned paper. Triggered by phrases like 'write the paper from this outline,' 'compose the full manuscript,' 'execute the outline,' or when users have completed strategic planning (academic-paper-strategist skill) and are ready to write. Takes optimized outline as input; outputs complete manuscript with iterative quality checks.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4,5972026年10月12日 更新

Multi-perspective academic paper review with dynamic reviewer personas. Simulates 5 independent reviewers (EIC + 3 peer reviewers + Devil's Advocate) with field-specific expertise. Supports full review, re-review (verification), quick assessment, methodology focus, and Socratic guided modes. Triggers on: review paper, peer review, manuscript review, referee report, review my paper, critique paper, simulate review, editorial review.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4,5972026年10月12日 更新

brycewang-stanford のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する