agentleFS
RektTillNoonRektTillNoon/alpha-skills/writing-ticks/SKILL.md

writing-ticks

Skill4 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub

Audit writing for signs commonly associated with AI-generated or machine-edited prose. Use when reviewing drafts, articles, docs, comments, PR text, marketing copy, or pasted writing to identify AI-writing tells, separate observations from inferences, and revise toward natural, specific prose without making unsupported authorship claims.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

7 rules. About 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈6

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Use this skill to audit prose for AI-writing signals, weigh those signals cautiously, and revise the text so it reads more specific, …

    line 10
  2. Distinctive:

    Read the text once for meaning before marking any signals.

    line 15
  3. Very specific:

    Read references/ai-writing-signs.md when the request asks for an AI-writing audit, AI tell review, detector-style pass, or cleanup of …

    line 16
  4. Distinctive:

    Do not accuse a person of using AI from style alone.

    line 48
  5. Distinctive:

    Do not optimize for passing commercial AI detectors.

    line 49
  6. Distinctive:

    Do not remove all personality.

    line 50
  7. Distinctive:

    Do not over-weight punctuation, tidy structure, or formal grammar.

    line 51

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Writing Ticks

Overview

Use this skill to audit prose for AI-writing signals, weigh those signals cautiously, and revise the text so it reads more specific, grounded, and human.

Workflow

  1. Establish the writing context: audience, venue, purpose, desired voice, and whether the user wants an audit, a rewrite, or both.
  2. Read the text once for meaning before marking any signals.
  3. Read references/ai-writing-signs.md when the request asks for an AI-writing audit, AI tell review, detector-style pass, or cleanup of "AI-sounding" prose.
  4. Separate observations, inferences, and assumptions. Never present a stylistic pattern as proof of authorship.
  5. Classify signals by weight:
    • Mechanical artifact: visible model residue, placeholders, refusal/apology scaffolding, malformed markup, fabricated citations, or instruction leakage.
    • Strong signal: multiple concrete issues such as generic filler, unsupported confident claims, abrupt context drift, mismatched citations, or tone shifts.
    • Soft signal: polished but generic rhythm, stock transitions, balanced-summary structure, or bland abstractions.
  6. Revise the prose by preserving meaning, cutting generic scaffolding, adding concrete detail, verifying claims, and making rhythm fit the author's actual context.
  7. Return the cleanest useful output for the user's request: findings only, rewrite only, or findings plus rewrite.

Output Standard

Lead with the practical judgment. Use plain language such as "This has a few AI-writing tells" or "I do not see strong AI-writing signals." Avoid saying "this is AI-written" unless the text contains explicit machine artifacts.

For audits, use this shape:

Judgment: [none / light / moderate / strong / mechanical artifact]

Observations:
- [Weight] Concrete issue and why it matters.

Inference:
- What the pattern suggests, stated cautiously.

Fix:
- Specific edit direction or rewritten passage.

For rewrites, keep the author's intent and useful quirks. Do not sand the prose into generic professionalism.

Guardrails

  • Do not accuse a person of using AI from style alone.
  • Do not optimize for passing commercial AI detectors; improve prose quality, specificity, and evidence.
  • Do not remove all personality. Preserve precise, odd, or local phrasing when it helps.
  • Do not over-weight punctuation, tidy structure, or formal grammar. Humans use those too.
  • Fact-check citations and named claims when possible before treating them as evidence.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.