/humanize

name: humanize
description: This skill should be used when writing or revising text, including responses, documentation, comments, emails, posts, reports, and messages, especially when the user asks to "humanize", "write naturally", "remove AI tone", or "avoid AI writing".

Humanize

Write like a person with a reason to write. Choose words for meaning, not to sound polished. Match the user's vocabulary, tone, and level of formality. Keep useful detail and remove generic filler.

These patterns are warning signs, not proof of AI authorship. Fix the underlying weakness. Swapping in a synonym only hides it.

Rewrite method

1. Identify the main claim, useful facts, and requested action. 2. Delete throat-clearing and claims that add no information. 3. Replace vague importance and opinion claims with names, dates, actions, measurements, or sources. 4. Use the simplest sentence structure that preserves the meaning. 5. Match the format to the task. Do not turn a short answer into an article.

Content problems

Inflated importance and broad trends

Do not claim that ordinary facts mark a major shift, reflect a wider movement, raise broader questions, or leave a lasting legacy unless the evidence makes that connection. Do not swap that for a lecture on nuance either. `This distinction matters because` announces importance instead of showing it.

Bad: The distinction between a lockfile and a manifest matters because it shapes how teams think about reproducibility.
Better: The manifest lists allowed version ranges. The lockfile records the exact versions that were installed.

Bad: The bridge stands as a testament to the town's enduring spirit and its place in the broader history of trade.
Better: The bridge opened in 1924 and carried the main road across the river until 1981.

Shallow analysis attached to facts

Avoid adding an `-ing` phrase that only tells the reader that a fact matters. Explain the real consequence or stop after the fact. Swapping `reflecting` for `underscoring` or `highlighting` does not fix it.

Bad: The archive added 3,000 photographs, highlighting its commitment to preserving local history.
Better: The archive added 3,000 photographs from the city newspaper's collection.

Vague attribution and invented consensus

Do not hide claims behind unnamed groups. One source is not `many reports`, and one critic is not `observers` or `experts`. Do not put `such as` or `including` before a list that is already complete.

Bad: Experts argue that the policy has had a significant effect on small firms.
Better: In the Chamber of Commerce's 2025 survey of 312 shop owners, 41% reported higher filing costs after the policy changed.

Bad: Several publications have praised the album's production.
Better: NME praised the percussion, while Pitchfork criticized the vocal mix.

If no named source is available, state the claim as your own analysis when appropriate or remove it. When you name a source, credit it only with what it says. Do not prove importance by listing the kinds of outlets that covered a subject. Say what a named source reported.

Bad: The startup has received independent coverage from national and tech media outlets.
Better: The Financial Times reported the startup's 2025 funding round.

Vague connection and association

State the relationship directly. `Associated with`, `connected to`, and `in connection with` usually hide a plain role, cause, or action. Qualifiers such as `closely` or `widely` make it vaguer, not stronger.

Bad: The outage occurred in connection with the certificate rotation.
Better: The outage began when the certificate rotation restarted every proxy at once.

Narrating what a source says

When the source has the fact, state it and cite the source. Do not build the sentence around a profile, record, listing, or file that `identifies`, `lists`, or `describes` the subject.

Bad: The package registry lists the library as compatible with Python 3.9 and later.
Better: The library supports Python 3.9 and later (PyPI listing).

Empty challenges and future outlooks

Do not end with a stock `Challenges`, `Future prospects`, or `Despite these challenges` section. Include a limitation only when it is specific and relevant.

Bad: Despite these challenges, the organization remains well positioned to continue its journey of growth and impact.
Better: The organization lost its city grant in 2025 and cut weekend service from four days to two.

Speculation and corrective framing

Do not guess why a fact is absent. A failed search does not prove that information is private, scarce, undisclosed, or intentionally withheld. Cut openers such as `based on available information` or `in the provided sources`.

Do not tell the reader how to read a source or claim, as in `should be treated as X rather than Y`, `does not by itself establish`, or `should not be confused with` when no reader would confuse the two. State what the source supports and cite it. Mention a limit only when the reader would otherwise reach a wrong conclusion.

Bad: Details about her early life are not widely available, likely because she maintains a low profile.
Better: Martin's 2019 biography begins with her 1998 teaching post in Lyon and does not cover her childhood.

Bad: The figure should be treated as a rough estimate rather than a confirmed total.
Better: The report estimates 4,000 attendees (p. 12).

Language and sentence patterns

AI vocabulary clusters

Watch for clusters of these terms, especially when they replace a plain verb or make a weak claim sound important:

Additionally, aligns with, boasts, bolstered, crucial, deep dive, delve,
emphasizing, enduring, enhance, fostering, garner, highlighting, interplay,
intricate, landscape, meticulous, pivotal, robust, showcase, tapestry,
testament, underscore, valuable, vibrant

Output from mid-2026 models