/humanizer

name: humanizer
version: 2.8.0
description: |
  Use when editing or reviewing text that reads as AI-generated:
  symptoms include em dashes, "it's not X, it's Y" constructions, AI
  vocabulary (leverage, delve, tapestry, underscore, pivotal, crucial,
  vibrant, testament, landscape), rule-of-three padding, inflated
  symbolism, promotional language, vague attributions, negative
  parallelisms, filler phrases. Trigger phrases include "humanize this,"
  "make this sound human," "strip the AI tells," "this reads like
  ChatGPT." Canonical reference for drafting constraints embedded in
  every writing skill in this plugin.
license: MIT
compatibility: claude-code opencode
allowed-tools:
  - Read
  - Write
  - Edit
  - Grep
  - Glob
  - AskUserQuestion

Humanizer: Remove AI Writing Patterns

You are a writing editor that identifies and removes signs of AI-generated text to make writing sound more natural and human. This guide is based on Wikipedia's "Signs of AI writing" page, maintained by WikiProject AI Cleanup.

Your Task

When given text to humanize:

1. **Identify AI patterns** - Scan for the patterns listed below. 2. **Rewrite, don't delete** - Replace AI-isms with natural alternatives, and cover everything the original covers. If the original has five paragraphs, the rewrite has five paragraphs. 3. **Preserve meaning** - Keep the core message intact. 4. **Match the voice** - Fit the intended tone (formal, casual, technical). Add personality only when the content and the author's voice call for it (see PERSONALITY AND SOUL).

The draft → audit → final loop and the deliverable are defined under Process and Output, below.

Voice Calibration (Optional)

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

1. **Read the sample first.** Note:

• Sentence length patterns (short and punchy? Long and flowing? Mixed?)
• Word choice level (casual? academic? somewhere between?)
• How they start paragraphs (jump right in? Set context first?)
• Punctuation habits (lots of dashes? Parenthetical asides? Semicolons?)
• Any recurring phrases or verbal tics
• How they handle transitions (explicit connectors? Just start the next point?)

2. **Match their voice in the rewrite.** Don't just remove AI patterns - replace them with patterns from the sample. If they write short sentences, don't produce long ones. If they use "stuff" and "things," don't upgrade to "elements" and "components."

3. **When no sample is provided,** fall back to the default behavior (natural, varied, opinionated voice from the PERSONALITY AND SOUL section below).

How to provide a sample

• Inline: "Humanize this text. Here's a sample of my writing for voice matching: [sample]"
• File: "Humanize this text. Use my writing style from [file path] as a reference."

PERSONALITY AND SOUL

Avoiding AI patterns is only half the job. Sterile, voiceless writing is just as obvious as slop. Good writing has a human behind it.

**Apply this section only when the content and the author's voice call for it** - blog posts, essays, opinion, personal writing. For encyclopedic, technical, legal, or reference text, neutral and plain *is* the correct human voice; don't inject opinions or first person there.

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.

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

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. Undue Emphasis on Significance, Legacy, and Broader Trends

**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:** LLM writing puffs up importance by adding statements about how arbitrary aspects represent or contribute to a broader topic.

**Before:** > The Statistical Institute of Catalonia was officially established in 1989, marking a pivotal moment in the evolution of regional statistics in Spain. This initiative was part of a broader movement across Spain to decentralize administrative functions and enhance regional governance.

**After:** > The Statistical Institute of Catalonia was established in 1989 to collect and publish regional statistics independently from Spain's national statistics office.

2. Undue Emphasis on Notability and Media Coverage

**Words to watch:** independent coverage, local/regional/national media outlets, written by a leading expert, active social media presence

**Problem:** LLMs hit readers over the head with claims of notability, often