/DetectAI

name: DetectAI
version: 1.1.2
description: "Detects AI-generated writing four ways — a heuristic audit against a catalog of known AI patterns, deterministic statistical signals (n-gram entropy, burstiness, repetition, stylometry — features never verdicts), an empirical Pangram score calibrated against known-human baselines, and a keyless scan for watermark and steganography signatures (invisible characters, homoglyphs, bidi, odd whitespace) in the bytes. USE WHEN detect AI writing, is this AI, AI detection, AI detector, did an AI write this, does this sound like AI, AI writing score, pangram, scan for AI tells, flag AI patterns, AI-isms, statistical AI signals, burstiness, text entropy, is this watermarked, detect watermark, steganography, zero-width chars, hidden characters, invisible unicode, compare drafts for AI-ness. NOT FOR rewriting prose to strip AI patterns (use a voice/authoring skill), plagiarism detection, detecting AI-generated images/video/code, or judging whether writing is any good."

DetectAI

What It Does

Answers two questions — *how much does this read as machine-generated?* and *does it carry an embedded mark?* — with four independent measures:

• **Heuristic audit.** Flags known AI tells (inflated vocabulary, the "not X, it's Y" tic, recycled transitions, uniform rhythm) against a severity-tiered pattern catalog. Free, instant, and it explains *why* each flag fired.
• **Statistical signals.** A deterministic pass (`LIFEOS/TOOLS/StatSignals.ts`) measuring the keyless distributional tells the research literature rates real: n-gram entropy, type-token ratio, repetition structure — plus the weak-alone folklore tier (burstiness, paragraph uniformity, function-word stylometry), each labeled with its reliability. Features, never verdicts (arXiv:2310.15264: paraphrase degrades every keyless statistic). Free, no key.
• **Empirical score.** Runs the text through the Pangram detection model and returns a real probability — AI% / AI-assisted% / human% — plus per-segment counts. Costs money, needs an API key, and doesn't care what your word list says.
• **Watermark scan.** A keyless, deterministic pass for character-level covert channels — invisible chars, variation-selector/Tags-block steganography, homoglyphs, bidi, odd whitespace. Catches embedded marks that live in the bytes; by design it *cannot* read sampling-time statistical watermarks (SynthID, Kirchenbauer, Anthropic's announced mark), which are key-gated. Free, no key.

The measures disagree often, and that disagreement is the useful part. Text can clear every pattern on the list and still score 100% AI, which tells you the tells are structural, not lexical — and a watermark hit is bytes-level proof regardless of what the other two say.

The Problem

"Does this sound like AI?" gets answered by vibes, and vibes are wrong in both directions. Heuristic word-lists flag legitimate writing and miss AI text that avoided the obvious words. Detector scores look authoritative but saturate — Pangram will confidently call a short *human* paragraph 100% AI. Neither measure alone is trustworthy, and a raw number with no baseline is close to meaningless.

This skill runs both, and anchors the empirical score against known-human writing so the number has something to be read against.

Setup — Pangram API key (required for scoring)

The heuristic audit works with no setup. The empirical score needs a key.

1. Create an account or log in at [pangram.com](https://www.pangram.com/solutions/api), open the **API** tab, and generate a key. 2. Add prepaid credits (from $5, or enable auto-refill). Realtime checks bill about **$0.05 per 1,000 words**. 3. Put the key in `~/.claude/.env`:

   PANGRAM_API_KEY=your-key-here

4. Verify:

   bun ~/.claude/LIFEOS/TOOLS/PangramScore.ts --file <a-file-you-wrote.md>

Full setup, alternatives, and troubleshooting (402/429 handling, endpoint override, key precedence): `Setup.md`.

Workflow Routing

| Workflow | Trigger | File | |----------|---------|------| | **Detect** | "scan for AI tells", "flag AI patterns", "does this sound like AI", "audit this for AI-isms", "statistical signals", "burstiness", "entropy" — heuristic + deterministic statistical pass, no key needed | `Workflows/Detect.md` | | **Score** | "score this for AI", "is this AI generated", "AI detection score", "pangram", "compare these drafts" — empirical, needs key | `Workflows/Score.md` | | **Watermark** | "is this watermarked", "detect a watermark", "scan for hidden/invisible characters", "steganography", "zero-width chars" — keyless byte-level signature scan, no key needed | `Workflows/Watermark.md` |

Asked simply "is this AI?" with a key configured, run both and report them side by side — the heuristic explains, the score measures. "Is this watermarked?" routes to Watermark, which answers a different question: whether a covert channel is embedded in the bytes, not whether the prose reads as AI.

Gotchas

• **Short samples are unreliable.** Detectors are weakest under ~5 sentences. Pangram leans toward decisive 100/0 calls and will flag a short human paragraph as 100% AI. Verified in testing: a plain-voice human paragraph and deliberate AI slop both scored 100% at roughly four sentences each. Score passages of a few hundred words or don't bother.
• **An absolute score without a baseline says little.** Score known-human writing in the same batch. If the human baseline also maxes out, the detector is saturating on the genre and length, not on the text. The A-vs-B comparison is the trustworthy part.
• **It measures detectability, not quality.** A low AI% means "reads human," not "reads well."
• **One detector is not ground truth.** Pangram is among the strongest available and still has real false-positive rates. Report it as a strong signal, never a verdict — and never accuse a person of AI authorship on one score.
• **Every call bills and polls.** The API is async (submit, then poll to