跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

humanizer

Review academic drafts for 24 common AI writing patterns and revise awkward wording or repetitive structures. Preserve meaning, economics terminology, citations, and LaTeX commands, with a report showing the changes and their locations.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

原文查看原文说明

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".

实测评分 未实测

查看安装方法

适用场景

  • Polishing an academic draft before submission
  • Varying repetitive transitions and paragraph structures
  • Editing economics papers while preserving terms and citations
  • Reviewing revisions with a change report

包含的文件(1)

  • SKILL.md4.8 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

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.

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

评论

无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。

还没有评论。来写第一条吧。

提交后会立即公开。请勿填写邮箱、电话等个人信息。URL 最多 2 个。

0 / 1000 字

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

同一仓库的技能

a1

免费

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Turn a research topic into testable questions
  • Narrow an overly broad research question
  • Compare alternative research angles
brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills47432026年10月20日 更新

a2

免费

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Comparing theories for a research question
  • Deriving hypotheses from relationships between variables
  • Examining weaknesses and anticipated reviewer objections
brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills47432026年10月20日 更新

a5

免费

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Clarifying philosophical foundations for a research proposal
  • Explaining why the chosen research methods fit the study
  • Drafting a statement about the researcher's position
brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills47432026年10月20日 更新

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Planning a paper chapter by chapter
  • Drafting a paper from research materials
  • Turning reviewer comments into a revision roadmap
brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills47432026年10月20日 更新

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Draft a full paper from a detailed outline
  • Review argument and citation quality chapter by chapter
  • Check terminology and argument flow across chapters
brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills47432026年10月20日 更新

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Review a manuscript before journal submission
  • Examine research methods and statistical validity
  • Challenge core arguments and alternative explanations
brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills47432026年10月20日 更新

查看 brycewang-stanford 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题