readability
Skill51 starsChanged 17 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Technical copyediting workflow that replaces corporate jargon with plain English, removes synthetic AI phrasing, and resolves paragraph-level readability and grammar issues.
- Commits and pushes
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.
3
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 56
When speedgrapher's slop MCP tool audits a file, it scores synthetic phrasing from 0 to 100 across five dimensions.
- Very specific: line 83
Run fog, slop, and vale on the target .md file and load references/tropes-and-jargon.md:
- Distinctive: line 104
Check for robotic staccato fragments (*"Fixing small bugs.
- Distinctive: line 141
Preserve Technical Accuracy: Never alter code blocks, CLI flags, benchmark numbers, API signatures, or URLs while copyediting surrounding …
- Distinctive: line 143
No Git Operations: Never execute git commit, git push, or other repository mutation commands.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Readability: jargon mitigation, deslopification & copyediting
readability turns dense, bureaucratic, or synthetic drafts into clear, human-authored technical prose. It combines three complementary disciplines:
- The 4-Step HBR Framework to remove status-signaling jargon and raw acronyms while preserving technical accuracy.
- The 5-Dimension AI Slop Purge (
deslopify) to eliminate LLM clichés and re-establish natural syntax. - Per-Paragraph
fogandvaleHotspot Remediation to fix density issues via Speedgrapher MCP metrics andreferences/tropes-and-jargon.md.
1. Why Technical Prose Gets Bogged Down: The HBR Jargon Insight
Writing loaded with jargon signals insecurity, not mastery. They found that professionals who feel low status lean on unexpanded acronyms and abstract vocabulary to manufacture authority. The strategy backfires: readers trust plain, concrete explanations more. In "Does Your Office Have a Jargon Problem?" (Harvard Business Review, March 2021), Zachariah Brown, Eric M. Anicich, and Adam D. Galinsky analyzed thousands of texts to track why people hide behind buzzwords.
Functional Precision vs. Status-Signaling Jargon
Technical copyediting must never "dumb down" real engineering concepts. Before cutting a technical term, classify it into one of two buckets:
| Classification | Definition | Examples | Editorial Action |
| Functional Precision (KEEP) | Exact computer science primitives, protocol names, syscalls, or metrics that have no simpler accurate synonym. | mutex, goroutine, idempotent, B-tree page split, p99 latency, CRC32C checksum, epub, mmap | Keep the term. If the term is an acronym or domain-specific concept that a cross-functional reader (The Scanner) might not know, define it briefly on first mention. |
| Status-Signaling Jargon (PURGE) | Bureaucratic noun stacks, slide-deck metaphors, and inflated verbs used to sound impressive rather than specify a mechanism. | orchestration layer validation methodology, operationalize, leverage, utilize, holistic paradigm, single pane of glass | Purge immediately. Replace with the concrete system actor, a plain active verb (use, run, validate), and the exact mechanism. |
The 4-Step HBR Jargon Mitigation Framework
Apply these four steps from the HBR framework to every document you edit:
- Start at the Top (Unambiguous Titles & Opening Leads):
- Strip insider code names, unexpanded acronyms, and buzzword stacks from the document title, frontmatter
summary/description, and the opening 150-word lead block so any technical reader immediately grasps the topic.
- Strip insider code names, unexpanded acronyms, and buzzword stacks from the document title, frontmatter
- Identify Jargon Tripwires & Unexpanded Acronyms:
- Scan for clusters of three or more consecutive multi-syllable nouns ("resource utilization optimization strategy") and undefined initialisms ("E2E CIL SLOs").
- Check Yourself (Plain-English Substitutions & First-Use Definitions):
- Expand unfamiliar acronyms on first use—for example, "extended Berkeley Packet Filter (eBPF)" or "Generative Engine Optimization (GEO)"—while leaving universally understood primitives (
HTTP,JSON,CPU,API,URL,CLI,SQL) unexpanded unless writing for beginners. - Replace every corporate verb (utilize, leverage, operationalize, facilitate) with its direct plain-English equivalent (use, run, help).
- Expand unfamiliar acronyms on first use—for example, "extended Berkeley Packet Filter (eBPF)" or "Generative Engine Optimization (GEO)"—while leaving universally understood primitives (
- Write to Be Understood, Not to Impress:
- Whenever a sentence hides a simple engineering trade-off behind formal passive abstractions ("A determination was made to effectuate memory reclamation"), rewrite it with an explicit subject and active verb ("The collector frees unused heap buffers every five seconds").
2. The 5-Dimension AI Slop Purge (deslopify)
When speedgrapher's slop MCP tool audits a file, it scores synthetic phrasing from 0 to 100 across five dimensions. Load references/tropes-and-jargon.md and purge every matched pattern:
| Dimension | What slop Measures | Common Failure Mode | Target Remediation |
| 1. Structural | Rhetorical templates: negative parallelisms, dramatic countdowns, self-answering questions, and bold-first listicles. | Framing routine technical points as dramatic reveals ("It's not X — it's Y", "Not X. Not Y. Just Z."). | Rewrite into single affirmative cause-and-effect clauses; convert mechanical **Bold**: Text lists into prose or comparison tables. |
| 2. Lexical | High-probability LLM vocabulary (delve, tapestry, landscape, paradigm, testament, beacon, catalyst, robust, seamless) and magic adverbs (quietly, deeply, fundamentally, merely, simply). | Substituting ornate metaphors and unverified adjectives for concrete engineering properties. | Delete magic adverbs; replace inflated words with exact system nouns, failure modes, and metrics. |
| 3. Filler | Throat-clearing transitions (It's worth noting, Importantly, Here's the kicker), copula evasions (serves as, stands as), and fractal signposting (Let's break this down, In conclusion). | Padding transitions without adding technical information. | Delete signposts and replace copula evasions with is or are. |
| 4. Rhythm Variance | Sentence-length Coefficient of Variation ($CV = \sigma / \mu$). | Monotonous 15–20 word sentences or choppy staccato fragments. | Alternate short diagnostic statements (5–8 words) with compound technical explanations (20–28 words). |
| 5. Syntactic Voice | Ratio of abstract nominalizations and passive constructions to active verbs and concrete subjects. | Hiding system agency behind noun stacks ("The execution of the validation step..."). | Restore concrete subjects (we, the scheduler, the client) and active verbs. |
3. Deterministic 4-Step Readability & Copyediting Workflow
Execute this four-step loop whenever improving a file's readability or deslopifying a draft:
flowchart LR
Step1["1. Baseline Telemetry\nRun `fog`, `slop` & `vale`\n+ load `tropes-and-jargon.md`"] --> Step2["2. HBR Jargon & Slop Purge\nCut status jargon, tropes &\nunexpanded acronyms"]
Step2 --> Step3["3. Paragraph Hotspot Surgery\nFix paragraphs with `fog` > 16\nand resolve `vale` spans"]
Step3 --> Step4{"4. Verification Gate\n`slop` < 20, `fog` 11–15,\n`vale` 0 warnings?"}
Step4 -->|No| Step2
Step4 -->|Yes| Done["Deliver Clean Text +\nSpeedgrapher Pill"]Step 1: Baseline Telemetry (fog, slop, vale)
Run fog, slop, and vale on the target .md file and load references/tropes-and-jargon.md:
- Inspect both the document-wide scores and the per-paragraph
paragraphs[]breakdown (start_line,end_line,fog,slop,classification) returned byfogandslop. - Identify specific paragraph hotspots (paragraphs where
fog > 16.0orslop >= 25) and exactvaleline/column alerts so you only rewrite paragraphs that need work rather than churning clean sections.
Step 2: HBR Jargon & AI Trope Purge
Apply the 4-Step HBR Jargon Mitigation Framework and the diagnostic tables in references/tropes-and-jargon.md:
- Replace status-signaling buzzwords and bureaucratic noun stacks with plain verbs and exact system actors.
- Expand unfamiliar domain acronyms on first mention.
- Strip lexical tells (delve, tapestry, landscape, leverage, utilize, robust, seamless), magic adverbs (quietly, deeply, merely, simply), negative parallelisms ("It's not X — it's Y"), and excessive em-dashes (
—).
Step 3: Per-Paragraph fog & vale Hotspot Surgery
For every paragraph flagged in paragraphs[] or by vale:
- When Paragraph
fog$> 16.0$:- Split compound sentences longer than 28–30 words into two distinct sentences.
- Convert multi-syllable nominalizations (implementation, utilization, configuration, orchestration, determination) into short active verbs (build, use, set, coordinate, decide).
- When Paragraph
fog$< 10.0$:- Check for robotic staccato fragments ("Fixing small bugs. Updating CI runners.") and combine them into cohesive clauses.
- When
valeReportserrororwarningSpans:- Apply
vale's deterministic replacement suggestions for weasel words, passive voice clusters, wordiness, and sentence-case headings. - If a
valerule produces a genuine false positive on a domain term across the project, note that the author can mute the rule or add the term to the custom vocabulary via theMute Rule/+ Add to Vocabbuttons in the alert popover, or the⚙️Settings modal in Speedgrapher.
- Apply
Step 4: Verification Gate
Re-run fog, slop, and vale on the edited file to verify measurable improvement:
- Target
slopScore: $< 20$ (never finish with a Slop Score $\ge 25$). - Target
fogIndex: $11.0\text{–}15.0$ overall, with no individual narrative paragraph stranded in thehard($> 18$) bucket. - Target
valeStatus: 0 errors and 0 warnings. - Report a concise Before $\rightarrow$ After Telemetry Table (
fog,slop, andvalecounts) and surface[file.md](sidecar://speedgrapher/panel/?file=/absolute/path/to/file.md).
4. Before & After Transformation Example
Before (slop: 68 | fog: 19.2 | Status-Signaling Jargon + AI Tropes)
In today's fast-paced distributed systems landscape, observability isn't just a nice-to-have — it's a foundational paradigm. Let's delve into how our E2E telemetry orchestration methodology quietly utilizes L7 CIL ring buffers to operationalize trace collection.
Here's the kicker: traditional head-based sampling strategies leverage naive probabilistic decisions. The result? Blind spots during critical latency spikes.
- Resilience: Leverages lock-free ring buffers to prevent data loss.
- Efficiency: Seamlessly compresses spans before network transmission.
- Scalability: Serves as a robust catalyst for high-cardinality debugging.
After (slop: 6 | fog: 13.1 | Functional Precision + Clean Human Cadence)
Head-based trace sampling drops 99% of requests at ingress, which often discards the exact traces needed to debug a p99 latency spike. To capture every slow or failing request without storing every healthy one, we moved our sampling decision to the collector tier.
Each collector holds spans in a lock-free ring buffer for five seconds while waiting for the root span to finish. If any span in the trace records an HTTP
5xxstatus or exceeds 250 ms, the collector compresses the full trace with Zstandard and flushes it to storage. Otherwise, it drops the buffer. Across 140 Go services in production, this tail-based pipeline cut trace storage volume by 62% while keeping 100% of error traces.
Operational Constraints
- Preserve Technical Accuracy: Never alter code blocks, CLI flags, benchmark numbers, API signatures, or URLs while copyediting surrounding prose.
- Preserve Author Voice: Strip status-signaling jargon and synthetic LLM tropes without flattening the author's natural personality, dry humor, or first-person engineering stories.
- No Git Operations: Never execute
git commit,git push, or other repository mutation commands.
Other versions4 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 4
- kevin-burns/claude-skills★ 8same name
- alesdrobysh/readability-agents★ 1same name
- alesdrobysh/readability-claude★ 1same name
- wiseiodev/skills★ 1same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository6 other files it gives its agents.
- rules/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- llms.txtllms.txt
- draftSkill
- ideateSkill
- publishSkill
- speedgrapherSkill
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.

