li-human
Skill3 starsChanged 30 days agoMITView on GitHub
Strip the machine fingerprint out of any draft - em dashes, AI slop words, invisible watermark characters - and score it against a five-check detection panel before it goes out. Use whenever text needs to sound human, when the user says humanize, "does this sound like AI", "remove the em dashes", "de-slop this", "will this get flagged", or before any LinkedIn post, comment, reply or DM is shown to the user.
8 other projects use a version of this, 3 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- furkanbilalakyuz/linkedin-agent-skill-tredited, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- HemanthMChakravarthy/linkedin-agent-skillsedited, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- mkmlabs-ai/linkedin-agentedited, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- mubaid/dsh-linkedin-agentword for word, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- robbiehaynes/job-searchword for word, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- avi691/linkedin-agent-skillword for word, first seen Oct 8, 2026
Other versions8 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 5
- Jakeschincariol/linkedin-agent-skill★ 514100% same
- avi691/linkedin-agent-skill★ 5100% same
- nessalazne/linkedin-agent-skill★ 3100% same
- mubaid/dsh-linkedin-agent★ 0100% same
- robbiehaynes/job-search★ 0100% same
Edited · 3
- mkmlabs-ai/linkedin-agent★ 496% same
- HemanthMChakravarthy/linkedin-agent-skills★ 248% same
- furkanbilalakyuz/linkedin-agent-skill-tr★ 086% same
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
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 repository11 other files it gives its agents.
- li-auditSkill
- li-carouselSkill
- li-commentSkill
- li-dmSkill
- li-inboxSkill
- li-planSkill
- li-postSkill
- li-profileSkill
- li-publishSkill
- li-replySkill
- li-repurposeSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. 2 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
2
Common
Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.
0
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
- Common: line 93
Read the structural flags.
- Common: line 95
If the verdict is not PASS, fix the weakest check named in the output and go again.
“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
li-human
Two tools live in this folder and they both actually run. Use them. Do not eyeball this.
python3 humanize.py draft.txt --report # clean it, show what changed
python3 detect.py draft.txt # score it, five checks
python3 detect.py before.txt after.txt # prove the deltaBoth read slop.json, which is the lexicon: 100+ stock words and phrases with
plain-English replacements, 17 invisible character classes, 11 typographic
substitutions, and 11 structural tells. It is meant to be edited. If the user
has a word they always use that the lexicon strips, remove it from the file.
What gets fixed automatically
1. Invisible characters. Zero-width spaces and joiners, word joiners,
soft hyphens, byte-order marks, Unicode tag characters, non-breaking and
narrow spaces. A keyboard does not produce these. They survive copy-paste,
they are invisible in every editor, and they are the single most mechanical
thing in generated text. humanize.py deletes every one, including any
remaining Unicode format character it does not have a name for.
2. Typography. Em dash to comma, en dash to hyphen, curly quotes to
straight, ellipsis to three dots, bullet character to hyphen. The em dash pass
is the one that matters: it collapses — to , and then cleans up the
double punctuation that leaves behind.
3. The slop lexicon. delve, leverage, robust, seamless, crucial, tapestry, testament to, moreover, "in today's fast-paced world", "let that sink in" and the rest, each swapped for a plain word, with capitalisation preserved and URLs left untouched.
What does NOT get fixed automatically
Structural tells get flagged, not rewritten, because changing the shape of a sentence needs judgement:
- "It's not just X, it's Y" and "not only X but also Y"
- Rule-of-three triads
- Rhetorical one-word question lines: "The result?"
- Rocket, fire, bulb, sparkle and dart emoji
- Hashtag walls
- Reflex engagement bait: "Thoughts?", "Agree?", "Who else?"
- Uniform sentence length and uniform bullet length
That list is your job. Rewrite each flagged line by hand, keeping the meaning,
then re-run detect.py. This is the part that moves the score from REVIEW to
PASS, and it is the part a script cannot do.
The five checks
detect.py scores five signals 0-100, higher is more human:
| check | what it measures | machine looks like |
| BURSTINESS | sentence-length variation | every sentence the same length |
| SPECIFICITY | numbers, names, concrete markers per 100 words | abstract nouns, no figures |
| SLOP DENSITY | lexicon hits per 100 words | stock vocabulary |
| FINGERPRINT | invisible chars, em dashes, curly quotes per 1k chars | typographically perfect |
| VOICE | contractions, person, structural tells | no contractions, staged reveals |
The verdict weights the mean at 60% and the weakest single check at 40%, because a detector only needs one signal to fire. PASS needs an overall of 70+ with no check below 55.
Say this honestly
These are five local heuristics modelled on the signals public detectors key on. They run entirely on the user's machine and nothing is uploaded. They are not GPTZero, Originality, Copyleaks, Winston or Turnitin, they do not call those APIs, and they cannot promise those verdicts. Fixing what they measure does tend to move those numbers, because they are measuring the same underlying things. That is the claim. Do not make a bigger one on the user's behalf, and do not tell a user their text is undetectable.
Order of operations
humanize.py draft.txt -o clean.txt --report- Read the structural flags. Rewrite those lines yourself.
detect.py draft.txt clean.txtto show the before and after.- If the verdict is not PASS, fix the weakest check named in the output and go again. Two rounds is normal. Five means the draft was written by formula, and the fix is a different draft, not more passes.
- Show the user the cleaned text and the score. Never the score alone.
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.

