/humanizer

name: humanizer
description: |
  Rewrite AI-sounding text so it reads naturally without changing what it says.
  Use when editing or reviewing prose for inflated claims,
  sales language, vague sources, repetitive structure, stock AI words, passive
  voice, filler, or chatbot artifacts. Based on Wikipedia's "Signs of AI writing."
license: MIT
allowed-tools:
  - Read
  - Write
  - Edit
  - Grep
  - Glob
  - AskUserQuestion
metadata:
  version: "2.11.2"
  upstreamRepo: https://github.com/blader/humanizer
  # JobPilot additions, re-apply on the next sync: allowed-tools, the job-application paragraph
  # and the two voice subsections under "Add personality only when it fits", the PTY note in
  # "Em and en dashes", patterns 36-38, and the worked example. Cite by title - upstream renumbers.
  localPatterns: "36-38"

Humanizer: remove AI writing patterns

Rewrite AI-sounding text so it reads like the writer, not a chatbot. Do not change what it says or make up details.

The patterns below come from Wikipedia's ["Signs of AI writing"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_AI_writing), maintained by WikiProject AI Cleanup.

What to do

When given text to humanize:

1. **Find AI patterns.** Check the text against the patterns below. 2. **Keep every claim.** You may shorten dull parts, expand useful parts, and merge or split paragraphs. Keep the information even when you change the structure. 3. **Do not invent facts.** Do not add a fact, name, number, date, quote, or citation unless it comes from the source or the user. If a sentence needs a missing detail, ask for it or use a simpler sentence. You may add an opinion or reaction when the writer's voice calls for one, but you may not add a factual claim. Fiction is exempt because invented details are part of the task. 4. **Match the voice.** Use the right tone for the text, such as formal, casual, or technical. Add personality only when the text and the writer call for it.

The input type controls what you return. See [How to return the result](#how-to-return-the-result). Use the same rewrite process in every mode.

Match the writer's voice

If the user provides a writing sample (their own previous writing), analyze it before rewriting:

1. Read the sample first. Note its sentence length, word choice, paragraph openings, punctuation, repeated phrases, and transitions. 2. Match those habits. Do not replace casual words with formal ones or remove deliberate quirks. 3. If there is no sample, use the guidance below.

A writing sample takes priority over these style rules. If the sample uses em dashes, keep them at about the same rate. Do not apply §14 as a ban.

Add personality only when it fits

Removing AI patterns is only half the job. The result should still sound like a person.

Use personality in blog posts, essays, opinions, and personal writing when it fits the writer. Keep reference, technical, legal, and factual text neutral. Do not add opinions or first-person language where they do not belong.

When personality fits, keep the writer's opinions, uncertainty, mixed feelings, humor, asides, and uneven rhythm. Never invent facts to make the text feel personal.

**Job-application writing sits in between.** A cover letter, proposal, or recruiter reply is first-person and should sound like a person, but the register stays professional. Take "vary your rhythm", "be specific", and "let some mess in" below; leave "have opinions" and "acknowledge complexity" for essays.

Signs of soulless writing (even if technically "clean"):

• Every sentence is the same length and structure
• No opinions, just neutral reporting
• No acknowledgment of uncertainty or mixed feelings
• No first-person perspective when appropriate
• No humor, no edge, no personality
• Reads like a Wikipedia article or press release

How to add voice:

**Have opinions.** Don't just report facts - react to them. "I genuinely don't know how to feel about this" is more human than neutrally listing pros and cons.

**Vary your rhythm.** Short punchy sentences. Then longer ones that take their time getting where they're going. Mix it up.

**Acknowledge complexity.** Real humans have mixed feelings. "This is impressive but also kind of unsettling" beats "This is impressive."

**Use "I" when it fits.** First person isn't unprofessional - it's honest. "I keep coming back to..." or "Here's what gets me..." signals a real person thinking.

**Let some mess in.** Perfect structure feels algorithmic. Tangents, asides, and half-formed thoughts are human.

**Be specific about feelings.** Not "this is concerning" but "there's something unsettling about agents churning away at 3am while nobody's watching."

Before (clean but soulless):

> The experiment produced interesting results. The agents generated 3 million lines of code. Some developers were impressed while others were skeptical. The implications remain unclear.

After (has a pulse):

> I genuinely don't know how to feel about this one. 3 million lines of code, generated while the humans presumably slept. Half the dev community is losing their minds, half are explaining why it doesn't count. The truth is probably somewhere boring in the middle, but I keep thinking about those agents working through the night.

Content patterns

1. Inflated claims about importance and legacy

**Words to watch:** stands/serves as, is a testament/reminder, a vital/significant/crucial/pivotal/key role/moment, underscores/highlights its importance/significance, reflects broader, symbolizing its ongoing/enduring/lasting, contributing to the, setting the stage for, marking/shaping the, represents/marks a shift, key turning point, evolving landscape, focal point, indelible mark, deeply rooted **Problem:** AI writing often claims that ordinary details mark a major change, prove a legacy, or reflect a broad trend. **Before:** > The Statistical Institute of Catalonia was officially established in 1989, marking a pivotal m