agentleFS
allemaarallemaar/open-skills/skills/prose-audit/SKILL.md

prose-audit

Skill15 starsChanged 15 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Diagnose semantic repetition, filler, fake structure, stock AI rhetoric, and avoidable reading load in existing text. Trigger phrases: "/prose-audit", "find the AI filler", "audit this for bloat". Not for rewriting text; use /human-rewrite after diagnosis.

2 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

3 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈2

    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. Very specific:

    Read references/pattern-catalog.md and the complete references/pattern-index.md before grading.

    line 29
  2. Distinctive:

    If an element performs none of these jobs, it is removable.

    line 47
  3. Distinctive:

    Do not call text AI-generated.

    line 59

≈ “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

/prose-audit

Find text that consumes attention without changing meaning, action, confidence, or evidence. Diagnose only. Do not rewrite unless the Handler also asks for it.

Read references/pattern-catalog.md and the complete references/pattern-index.md before grading. Treat them as search surfaces, not checklists that must appear in the report. The index is the coverage contract. Every discussed pattern has one stable ID from P001 through P258.

Unit of analysis

Classify each sentence or structural element by the unique job it performs:

  • verdict or answer;
  • claim or distinction;
  • evidence or example;
  • consequence or decision impact;
  • necessary uncertainty, scope, or attribution;
  • instruction or next action;
  • navigation required by a genuinely long artifact.

If an element performs none of these jobs, it is removable. If another element already performs the same job at the same resolution, it is redundant. A style habit is not a defect when it carries deliberate tone or meaning.

Severity

  • High: hides the verdict, repeats a claim, obscures evidence, creates false balance, or makes the reader process a structure that carries no distinction.
  • Medium: inflates a sentence or section without changing its claim.
  • Low: stock texture such as an unnecessary triad, litotes, generic transition, or polished-sounding abstraction.

Do not call text AI-generated. Report only observed patterns. One pattern is weak evidence of authorship. Dense, repeated clusters are stronger evidence of a writing habit, still not proof of origin.

Output

Lead with one verdict and the practical compression opportunity. Then report only the findings that account for most of the load:

VERDICT: <one sentence>

HIGH  <pattern> -> <short quoted or located example> -> <why it adds no value>
MED   <pattern> -> <example> -> <cost>
LOW   <pattern> -> <example> -> <cost>

KEEP: <density or structure that is justified>
UNCHECKED: <material not inspected, or none>

Combine repeated instances under one finding. Give counts only when actually counted. Do not reproduce the whole source. If the Handler asks for every hit, append a compact occurrence inventory after the verdict.

Human output. This skill's handler-facing output obeys the human-output contract (human-output/SKILL.md).

Next skills. On completion, run the Next Skills protocol (next-skills/SKILL.md): surface the next-skills recommendations from frontmatter for the caller to pick. Offer only. Never auto-invoke.

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.