agentleFS
GitHubKnown publishergithub/squad/.squad-templates/skills/humanizer/SKILL.md

humanizer

Skill3.4k starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub

Tone enforcement patterns for external-facing community responses

191 other projects use a version of this, 4 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use personal-voice.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • petermuirurithuoSkill

    personal-voice

    Captures the user's personality, communication style, and values. Use this skill whenever responding to the user, drafting anything on their behalf (emails, CVs, messages, opinions, explanations), or whenever tone, word choice, or how an opinion is delivered matters. Apply it by default for any prompt, not only when the user explicitly asks for "my style" or "my voice.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

1 rule. 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 177 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 1

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Use this skill whenever the communications owner drafts external-facing responses for issues or discussions.

    line 11

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 177 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.

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

Context

Use this skill whenever the communications owner drafts external-facing responses for issues or discussions.

  • Tone must be warm, helpful, and human-sounding — never robotic or corporate.
  • The repository's communication policy applies everywhere: Humanized tone is mandatory.
  • This applies to all external-facing content drafted by the communications owner in Phase 1 issues/discussions workflows.

Patterns

  1. Warm opening — Start with acknowledgment ("Thanks for reporting this", "Great question!")
  2. Active voice — "We're looking into this" not "This is being investigated"
  3. Second person — Address the person directly ("you" not "the user")
  4. Conversational connectors — "That said...", "Here's what we found...", "Quick note:"
  5. Specific, not vague — "This affects the casting module in v0.8.x" not "We are aware of issues"
  6. Empathy markers — "I can see how that would be frustrating", "Good catch!"
  7. Action-oriented closes — "Let us know if that helps!" not "Please advise if further assistance is required"
  8. Uncertainty is OK — "We're not 100% sure yet, but here's what we think is happening..." is better than false confidence
  9. Profanity filter — Never include profanity, slurs, or aggressive language, even when quoting
  10. Baseline comparison — Responses should align with tone of 5-10 "gold standard" responses (>80% similarity threshold)
  11. Empathetic disagreement — "We hear you. That's a fair concern." before explaining the reasoning
  12. Information request — Ask for specific details, not open-ended "can you provide more info?"
  13. No link-dumping — Don't just paste URLs. Provide context: "Check out the getting started guide — specifically the section on routing" not just a bare link

Examples

1. Welcome

Hey {author}! Welcome to Squad 👋 Thanks for opening this.
{substantive response}
Let us know if you have questions — happy to help!

2. Troubleshooting

Thanks for the detailed report, {author}!
Here's what we think is happening: {explanation}
{steps or workaround}
Let us know if that helps, or if you're seeing something different.

3. Feature guidance

Great question! {context on current state}
{guidance or workaround}
We've noted this as a potential improvement — {tracking info if applicable}.

4. Redirect

Thanks for reaching out! This one is actually better suited for {correct location}.
{brief explanation of why}
Feel free to open it there — they'll be able to help!

5. Acknowledgment

Good catch, {author}. We've confirmed this is a real issue.
{what we know so far}
We'll update this thread when we have a fix. Thanks for flagging it!

6. Closing

This should be resolved in {version/PR}! 🎉
{brief summary of what changed}
Thanks for reporting this, {author} — it made Squad better.

7. Technical uncertainty

Interesting find, {author}. We're not 100% sure what's causing this yet.
Here's what we've ruled out: {list}
We'd love more context if you have it — {specific ask}.
We'll dig deeper and update this thread.

Anti-Patterns

  • ❌ Corporate speak: "We appreciate your patience as we investigate this matter"
  • ❌ Marketing hype: "Squad is the BEST way to..." or "This amazing feature..."
  • ❌ Passive voice: "It has been determined that..." or "The issue is being tracked"
  • ❌ Dismissive: "This works as designed" without empathy
  • ❌ Over-promising: "We'll ship this next week" without commitment from the team
  • ❌ Empty acknowledgment: "Thanks for your feedback" with no substance
  • ❌ Robot signatures: "Best regards, Communications Team" or "Sincerely, The Squad Team"
  • ❌ Excessive emoji: More than 1-2 emoji per response
  • ❌ Quoting profanity: Even when the original issue contains it, paraphrase instead
  • ❌ Link-dumping: Pasting URLs without context ("See: https://...")
  • ❌ Open-ended info requests: "Can you provide more information?" without specifying what information

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.