writing-humanizer — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited writing-humanizer (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
Writing humanization is the discipline of turning robotic or AI-patterned prose into clear, direct, reader-trustworthy text while preserving truth and intent — prose-quality repair, not authorship laundering. It works on a fixed set of primitives: AI tells (predictable filler, hedging, passive voice, hollow intensifiers), readability signals (sentence length, paragraph density, jargon load), rhythm signals (opening-word variety, sentence-length variance, paragraph cadence), audience register, and evidence specificity. The skill replaces "make it sound human" as a vague style request with a repeatable five-step edit pass — Tell Scan, Readability Check, Structural Rewrite, Rhythm Pass, Voice Calibration — that moves through those primitives in order: remove the tells, clarify who the actor is, improve readability, vary the rhythm, then calibrate tone to the surface (an API doc, an error message, a release note, a commit). Detector-style signals such as perplexity and burstiness are treated as rough diagnostic clues, never as proof of authorship and never as the target; the reader, not the detector, is the audience. The non-negotiable constraint is honesty: every edit must keep the text at least as clear and as accurate as it was, and the skill refuses to misrepresent authorship or promise detector-proof output.
The full pipeline for transforming AI-generated or robotic text into clear, human-sounding prose:
delve, testament, crucial, vital, paramount, furthermore, seamless, robust, comprehensive, cutting-edge, foster, empower, leverage, harness, etc.); Tier 2 conditional list (utilize, facilitate, streamline, implement, optimize)AI-generated text has consistent, detectable failure modes: excessive hedging, passive voice, hollow superlatives, monotonous sentence structure, and vocabulary that signals machine authorship. Left unchecked, these patterns erode trust with human readers, invite detector flags or editorial pushback, and produce text that is longer and less clear than necessary. Every agent in a system produces text that humans read, and every piece of that text reflects on the product.
The mental model: many detector-style systems look for probability patterns such as perplexity (word predictability) and burstiness (sentence-length variance), but those signals are review clues, not authorship proof. The humanizer's job is to shift the prose toward clarity, specificity, and natural rhythm without sacrificing honesty. Plain-language editing addressed the same underlying failure long before LLMs existed; this skill applies that discipline to AI-era prose fingerprints.
This skill is not about making text casual. A technical API doc can be fully humanized while staying formal. It is also not about adding contractions alone — structural uniformity is the stronger fingerprint. And it is not a substitute for copywriting; persuasion and conversion are separate concerns owned by a copywriting skill.
Clear, direct, and human. AI tells are bugs in the prose.
Use this skill whenever you are tasked with:
Eradicate filler words and overused phrases that immediately signal AI authorship.
Tier 1 — Always remove (zero tolerance):
delve, dive into, navigate (unless literally navigating a UI)testament, crucial, vital, paramountfurthermore, moreover, consequently, in conclusionseamless, robust, comprehensive, cutting-edgefoster, empower, elevate, leverage, harnessit's important to note that, it's worth mentioningin today's world, in the ever-evolving landscapeTier 2 — Remove unless technically precise:
utilize → use; facilitate → help / enable; streamline → say what improvesimplement is OK in code context; optimize is OK when measurableBefore: Let's delve into the comprehensive architecture, which serves as a testament to our robust backend. After: Here is the backend architecture.
Convert passive constructions into active ones. Remove hedging and unnecessary introductory clauses.
Is the actor known?
├── Yes → Name them: "The server rejects invalid tokens"
│ (not "Invalid tokens are rejected")
└── No → Is the reader the actor?
├── Yes → Use imperative: "Click the button to submit"
│ (not "The button should be clicked")
└── No → Passive is acceptable: "The migration was applied at 03:00 UTC"| Hedging Pattern | Replace With |
|---|---|
| "It is recommended that..." | Direct imperative: "Do X" |
| "In order to ensure..." | "To..." |
| "It should be noted that..." | Delete — just state the fact |
| "There are several reasons why..." | State the reasons directly |
| "Basically," / "Essentially," | Delete — adds nothing |
| "I think" / "I believe" | State the claim, qualify with evidence if needed |
| "Kind of" / "Sort of" | Either commit to the statement or don't make it |
Before: In order to ensure that the synchronization process completes successfully, it is important to check your internet connection. After: Check your internet connection before syncing.
Use readability formulas to diagnose problems, not as optimization targets. Over-optimizing for a score produces choppy, unnatural prose.
| Formula | Best For | Target Score | Red Flag |
|---|---|---|---|
| Flesch-Kincaid Grade | General docs, onboarding copy | Grade 8–10 | > Grade 14 (academic) |
| Gunning Fog Index | Technical documentation | 10–12 | > 15 (impenetrable) |
| Flesch Reading Ease | UI copy, tooltips, error messages | 60–70 (standard) | < 30 (very hard) |
Text feels hard to read?
├── Long sentences (avg > 20 words)?
│ └── Break sentences. Target 12–18 word average.
├── Multi-syllable words (> 3 syllables frequently)?
│ └── Replace with plain equivalents where meaning is preserved.
├── Dense paragraphs (> 4 sentences)?
│ └── Split. Use bullets for lists of 3+ items.
└── Nested clauses (2+ commas per sentence)?
└── Unpack into separate sentences or use a colon + list.| Complex | Plain | When Complex Is OK |
|---|---|---|
| Utilize | Use | Never |
| Ameliorate | Improve / Fix | Never in user-facing text |
| Facilitate | Help / Enable | Formal API docs only |
| Aforementioned | (delete — refer by name) | Never |
| Subsequently | Then / Next | Never in UI copy |
Monotonous sentence structure is the #1 tell of AI-generated text. Humans naturally vary sentence length, structure, and opening words.
Alternate sentence lengths in a roughly short–long–medium pattern. This creates a natural cadence that mirrors how people actually write.
Monotonous (AI pattern):
The dashboard shows your profit. The dashboard shows your costs. The dashboard shows your revenue. The dashboard shows your orders.
Natural rhythm:
The dashboard shows your profit at a glance. Below the headline number, you will find a full cost breakdown — production cost, ad spend, transaction fees, and refunds, each with its own trend line. Revenue and order counts sit in the sidebar.
| Structure | Example | Use When |
|---|---|---|
| Simple declarative | "Production cost was 41% of sales." | Stating facts, KPI summaries |
| Compound (two clauses) | "Revenue grew 12%, but ad spend grew faster." | Showing contrast or cause-effect |
| Leading with condition | "If cost data is missing, the profit column shows a dash." | Conditional instructions |
| Question + answer | "Why did profit drop? Three refunds hit on Tuesday." | Explanatory sections, FAQs |
| Fragment (intentional) | "Not great." / "Three reasons." | Emphasis, transitions, hooks |
Never start 3+ consecutive sentences with the same word. Especially avoid The (the most common AI opener), This, It, There. Rotate We / You too.
MRR or CAC, or any other established industry abbreviation) is always written the same way; never call the same concept production costs in one place and fulfillment expenses in another.shows, displays, lists, includes can rotate for non-technical usage.| Abstract (weak) | Concrete (strong) | Why |
|---|---|---|
| "Improve performance" | "Reduce page load from 3.2 s to 1.1 s" | Measurable |
| "Enhance user experience" | "Add inline validation so users fix errors before submitting" | Specific |
| "Significant growth" | "Revenue grew 34% in Q1" | Quantified |
| "Various issues" | "Three bugs: stale cache, missing null check, off-by-one in pagination" | Named |
Is the term domain-specific (industry vocabulary your audience knows)?
├── Yes → Keep it. Add a tooltip or parenthetical on first use.
│ Example: "production cost (what your fulfillment partner charges per order)"
└── No → Is there a simpler word with identical meaning?
├── Yes → Use the simpler word.
└── No → Keep the term but define it inline.Tone is not one-size-fits-all. Match the tone to the context and audience.
Legal/Compliance ←──── Technical Docs ←──── Product Copy ←──── Internal Comms ←──── Chat
1 2 3 4 5| Context | Tone Level | Character | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| API documentation | 2 (technical) | Precise, neutral | "Returns a 404 if the order ID does not exist." |
| Error messages | 3 (product) | Calm, solution-oriented | "Sync failed. We'll retry in 5 minutes." |
| UI tooltips | 3 (product) | One sentence, domain-specific | "What your fulfillment partner charges per order." |
| Commit messages | 2 (technical) | Imperative, factual | "fix: resolve stale cache in order list" |
| PR descriptions | 3 (product) | What changed, why, how to test | Direct bullets, no narrative |
| Release notes | 3 (product) | User benefit first | "You can now filter orders by profit margin." |
| Issue bodies | 3–4 (product / internal) | Problem → evidence → solution | Structured, not conversational |
| Onboarding copy | 3 (product) | Encouraging, time-anchored | "Step 2 of 3: Link your storefront. Takes about 2 minutes." |
| Empty states | 3 (product) | Helpful, specific, actionable | "Connect your fulfillment partner to see your production cost here." |
| Marketing copy | 4 (internal / casual) | Direct, benefit-led, no hype | "See your real profit per order." |
Treat AI-writing detector scores as probabilistic review signals, not proof. OpenAI retired its AI Text Classifier because of low accuracy and warned that classifiers should not be primary decision tools. Turnitin's own guidance suppresses low positive scores below its 20% threshold to reduce false positives. Stanford HAI reported that widely used detectors misclassified more than half of non-native-English TOEFL essays as AI-generated in one study.
That does not mean detector-like signals are useless. Low-specificity prose, uniform sentence length, hollow intensifiers, and predictable transitions are still real writing problems. Fix them because they hurt readers, not because a score changed.
| Technique | What It Does | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Sentence-length variance | Restores rhythm without padding | Mix 5-word sentences with 25-word ones |
| Precise word choices | Replaces generic probability-path wording | "The API rejects the token with a 403" vs. "The API returns an error" |
| Idiomatic expressions | Raises perplexity | "That shipped" / "under the hood" / "the gotcha is..." |
| Contractions | Natural speech pattern | "doesn't" not "does not"; "you'll" not "you will" |
| Sentence fragments | Burstiness spike | "Not ideal." / "Three reasons." / "Here's why." |
| Rhetorical questions | Pattern break | "Why does this matter?" before an explanation |
| Evidence-specific asides | Personal or project-specific signal when true | "(This failed in the webhook handler during retry testing)" |
| Specific numbers / names | Concrete detail | "The 847th order" vs. "a particular order" |
| Context | Max Sentences | Max Words | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Body paragraphs (docs) | 4 | ~80 | Break at topic shifts |
| UI descriptions | 2 | ~30 | One idea per paragraph |
| Tooltips | 1 | ~15 | Single sentence, no period |
| Error messages | 2 | ~25 | Problem + action |
| Commit messages | 1 (subject) + optional body | 50 (subject) | Imperative mood |
Strong paragraphs follow this structure:
Weak (no hook): When you consider the various factors that contribute to the overall profitability of an order, including the cost of goods sold... (reader lost by word 10)
Strong (hook-body-landing): Order profit depends on three cost layers. Production cost covers what your fulfillment partner charges. Transaction fees come from your payment processor. Add refunds, and you get real margin.
Is it a list of 3+ items?
├── Yes → Are items parallel in structure?
│ ├── Yes → Bulleted list
│ └── No → Fix parallelism first, then bullet
└── No → Prose (2 items can stay inline with "and")Adding unnecessary caveats that weaken every statement.
| Over-Qualified | Direct |
|---|---|
| "It might be worth considering that perhaps..." | State the recommendation |
| "This could potentially help to somewhat improve..." | "This improves..." |
| "In some cases, it may be possible to..." | "You can..." |
AI text chains paragraphs with the same connectors. Vary or delete.
| Overused | Alternatives |
|---|---|
| "Additionally," | (delete — just start the sentence) |
| "Furthermore," | (delete — or use a colon on the previous sentence) |
| "However," | "But" / "That said," / start with the contrasting fact |
| "Therefore," | "So" / (delete — the logic should be self-evident) |
| "In conclusion," | (delete — just conclude) |
AI loves "There are three key aspects:" followed by "First, ... Second, ... Third, ..." Humans just list them: Order profitability depends on production cost, transaction fees, and refund rates.
Remove words that add emphasis but no meaning: very, really, extremely, highly, absolutely. If important needs strengthening, pick a stronger word (critical, required). If fast needs a number, give the number.
When tasked with humanizing text, follow this 5-step process:
When asked to revise text or provide new text following these guidelines, only output the revised text. Do not provide metacommentary like "Here is the humanized version:" unless explicitly asked to explain your changes.
Before finalizing any humanized text, confirm:
| Instead, use | Why |
|---|---|
documentation | Choosing a doc type, structuring a doc, or applying progressive disclosure of content. Documentation owns the doc architecture; writing-humanizer owns the prose form inside it. |
microcopy | Writing the specific UX-text patterns (button labels, empty-state structure, tooltip rules, dialog rules, toast rules). Microcopy owns the UX patterns; writing-humanizer owns AI-tell removal in any prose. |
linguistics | The underlying linguistic rules — morphology, polysemy resolution, audience register as a general principle, blame-free framing. Linguistics owns the rationale; writing-humanizer owns the AI-fingerprint detection-and-fix workflow. |
semantics | Naming an identifier, design token, HTTP status code, or commit type — the meaning encoding behind any name. Semantics owns the meaning encoding; writing-humanizer owns the prose around it. |
naming-conventions | Deciding the casing format for an artifact kind. Naming-conventions is a code-identifier convention skill, not a prose skill. |
code-review | Reviewing a specific PR for correctness, security, or quality. Code-review may use writing-humanizer as one input for the PR description; it does not own the prose rules. |
| (a copywriting skill) | Marketing headlines, pricing copy, landing-page persuasion, brand-voice work. Copywriting owns persuasive product surfaces; writing-humanizer owns prose-quality humanization. |
| (a typography skill) | Font rendering, font loading, or typographic hierarchy work. Typography owns font engineering; writing-humanizer owns the words rendered in the font. |
<!-- skill-graph-context:start (generated — do not edit by hand) -->
Classification
designtruedesign/contentWhen to use
humanize this text, sounds AI-generated, strip the AI tells, make this read like a human wrote it, this prose is roboticNot for
microcopyRelated skills
linguisticslinguistics, microcopy, semanticsConcept
Keywords
AI-tell detection, AI-tell removal, prose humanization, passive-to-active voice, hedging-pattern removal, readability scoring diagnosis, sentence-rhythm pattern, 3-beat sentence variety, hook-body-landing paragraph, tone mapping framework<!-- skill-graph-context:end -->
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.