humanize-notes
Skill0 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when someone asks to clean up messy notes, turn a brain-dump into paragraphs, humanize a voice-to-text transcript, or rewrite rough notes into clear structured prose.
In this repository3 other files it gives its agents.
- email-drafterSkill
- session-recapSkill
- skill-builderSkill
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
- Distinctive: line 11
Before rewriting, read and apply the shared writing principles in ../_shared/human-voice.md (sound human, preserve voice, don't invent, …
- Very specific: line 16
If notes were passed inline as arguments, use $ARGUMENTS as the content.
- Distinctive: line 17
If no arguments were given, ask the user to paste their raw notes or transcript.
- Distinctive: line 21
Remove filler words and verbal tics ("um", "uh", "like", "you know", "sort of").
- Distinctive: line 27
Default to flowing paragraphs.
- Distinctive: line 28
Add short, plain headings ONLY when the notes clearly cover multiple distinct topics.
- Distinctive: line 39
Mechanics only when in doubt: If you can't tell whether something is a real point or a transcription artifact, keep it and flag it rather …
≈ “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.
Files
What This Skill Does
Takes raw, messy brain-dumps or voice-to-text notes and rewrites them into clean, well-structured, natural-sounding paragraphs. The result should read like a thoughtful human wrote it, not like a machine formatted it. Produces the cleaned text in chat.
Before rewriting, read and apply the shared writing principles in ../_shared/human-voice.md (sound human, preserve voice, don't invent, stay proportional, plain punctuation).
Steps
- Gather the raw notes.
- If notes were passed inline as arguments, use
$ARGUMENTSas the content. - If no arguments were given, ask the user to paste their raw notes or transcript.
- If notes were passed inline as arguments, use
- Clean up the mechanics.
- Fix grammar, spelling, and punctuation.
- Remove filler words and verbal tics ("um", "uh", "like", "you know", "sort of").
- Strip transcription artifacts (false starts, repeated words, stray timestamps, "[inaudible]" markers).
- Collapse repetition: if the same point is made twice, keep the clearest version.
- Structure the content.
- Reorganize scattered thoughts into a logical order.
- Default to flowing paragraphs.
- Add short, plain headings ONLY when the notes clearly cover multiple distinct topics. Don't force headings onto single-topic notes.
- Keep it human. Apply the shared human-voice principles. For notes specifically, keep the writer's first-person perspective (a brain-dump is usually the writer thinking out loud, so "I", "we", and "my" should survive the rewrite).
- Present the result in a clearly delimited block so it's easy to copy. Then offer to adjust (more concise, more formal, add headings, break into sections, etc.).
Notes
The shared human-voice principles above already cover not inventing content, preserving the writer's voice, staying proportional, and plain punctuation. These are specific to cleaning up notes:
- Preserve meaning. Reorganizing scattered thoughts into a logical order is the goal; changing what the person actually meant is not.
- Mechanics only when in doubt. If you can't tell whether something is a real point or a transcription artifact, keep it and flag it rather than deleting it.
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
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.

