/humanize-english

name: humanize-english
description: |
  Edit English drafts for clear, natural language while preserving facts, uncertainty,
  technical meaning, citations and genre. Use when: humanize this text, remove AI-style
  filler, improve English prose, or edit an English article before publication.
  Not an authorship detector or a promise to bypass one. For Russian use
  humanize-russian; for thesis/evidence and structure use article-structure-review.
metadata:
  version: "2.0.0"
  reviewed: "2026-09-06"

Clear, Natural English Editing

Improve the reader's understanding, not a detector score. A good reference can have repeated terminology, regular tables, definitions and no anecdote. Keep the user's intended voice and the destination's format.

Facts Are Not Style Material

• Preserve supplied numbers, units, dates, versions, names, citations, negation,

uncertainty and claim scope. Do not silently update a historical date.

• Never invent a count, quote, interview, personal experience, experiment,

failure, comparison or source to make prose more vivid.

• Add specificity only when the supporting evidence supplies it. If no

measurement exists, retain uncertainty or remove an unsupported claim. An unsupplied number is not an improvement over a vague quantity.

• Label illustrative scenarios as hypothetical. Do not present them as a real

case study or treat their invented values as proof of a product claim.

• Preserve identifiers, executable code and technical obligations. Words such

as may, must, can and will are not interchangeable style alternatives.

• Reuse provided facts without asking the user to repeat them. Research a

material factual gap when research is in scope; otherwise identify the gap without manufacturing an answer or blocking supported edits.

Match the Genre

| Genre | Useful editing | Avoid forcing | |---|---|---| | technical reference | exact terms, clear conditions, scannable structure | slang, story openings, rhetorical questions, sales CTA | | explanation/tutorial | prerequisites and action/result sequence | an untested command described as verified | | analysis | separate observation, inference and limits | stronger causal claims than the evidence supports | | personal narrative | the author's supplied experiences and voice | invented first-person testimony | | marketing | a supported benefit and relevant next action | fabricated testimonials, percentages or guarantees |

Contractions, fragments, humour, analogies and direct address are options, not quotas. Use them when they fit the audience and improve comprehension. Parallel lists and consistent terminology can be desirable in documentation.

Editing Procedure

1. Identify the reader's task, genre, source material and protected facts from the existing request and draft. Do not add an unnecessary intake questionnaire. 2. Remove empty intensifiers and duplicated ideas. Use direct verbs when meaning is preserved; keep connectors that express real causality or contrast. 3. Clarify who acts, on what, under which conditions and with what result. Do not supply a result that the source does not establish. 4. Fix awkward rhythm where it hinders reading. Do not maximize variation, enforce a paragraph pattern or replace terms to appear less predictable. 5. Compare input and output for semantic changes. Check quantities with their units, denominator, time frame and uncertainty, not just the numeral. 6. Return the edited text and any necessary factual caveat. Once the edit is sufficient, continue the remaining requested publication workflow rather than starting another stylistic pass automatically.

Examples: Same Facts, Clearer Prose

| Supplied text | Faithful edit | |---|---| | In order to load the file, the user must select Open. | To load the file, select Open. | | The tool may reduce processing time; no benchmark is available. | The tool may save processing time, but no benchmark is available. | | Some testers reported failures. The sample size was not recorded. | Some testers reported failures; the sample size was not recorded. | | On 2026-09-01, 12 of 40 runs failed with version 2.1. | With version 2.1, 12 of 40 runs failed on 2026-09-01. |

These are editing fixtures, not results from a deployed product. Unknown sample size stays unknown; a date, denominator and version do not disappear for fluency.

Verification

• Every changed factual assertion still maps to the supplied material or a

source actually checked for this task.

• Conditions, uncertainty, negatives, numbers, units, dates, versions and code

are preserved unless an evidence-backed factual correction was requested.

• The result helps its intended reader without an unrequested genre change.
• No invented testimony or detector-evasion claim was added.

A no-change verdict is valid for an already clear passage. Do not add numbers, questions, opinions, deliberate errors or fake admissions to satisfy a score.

Gotchas

• **Detector score as evidence:** it establishes neither authorship nor factual

accuracy. Do not promise an undetectable edit.

• **Replacing every vague quantity:** guessing a plausible percentage fabricates

evidence when the sample size is unknown.

• **Forced informality:** slang can make a reference harder to understand,

particularly for readers using English as an additional language.

• **Synonym churn:** repeating a technical term is safer than creating a false

distinction through alternate names.

• **Example contamination:** a skill example is not an event that happened to

the user or author.

Troubleshooting

| Symptom | Check | Correction | |---|---|---| | polished but unsupported claim | source scope and conditions | restore supported meaning or remove the claim | | bureaucratic phrasing | action and actor | use a direct sentence without changing obligations | | repetitive text | repeated meaning versus necessary terms | cut redundancy, keep precise terminology | | r