agentleFS
s-choungs-choung/Research-Skills/skills/humanizer_kor/SKILL.md

humanize-writing

Skill36 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub

Revise AI-generated or mechanical-sounding text so it reads like a specific person wrote it. Use this skill when the user asks to "humanize", "make natural", "remove AI feel", "rewrite like a person wrote it", fix "AI-sounding" or "기계적인" text, or pass AI detection. Also trigger when the user pastes text and asks for a more natural or human tone, in either English or Korean. Do NOT use for summarization, translation, or creative writing from scratch.

18 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

8 rules. 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 11 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 8

    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:

    Don't fabricate: Never invent facts, quotes, sources, personal experience, numbers, named actors, or emotions that aren't in the original.

    line 12
  2. Distinctive:

    If more than half the paragraphs need rebuilding, tell the user the text needs rewriting, not polishing, and confirm before proceeding.

    line 33
  3. Distinctive:

    Opening: If the first sentence could open any piece on the same general topic, replace it with the first specific claim, finding, event, or …

    line 37
  4. Distinctive:

    Second paragraph: Must advance the opening, not retreat to context or methodology.

    line 39
  5. Distinctive:

    Counter-arguments: If the text dismisses a counter-argument with "both perspectives have merit" or equivalent, either engage it honestly …

    line 45
  6. Distinctive:

    Sources: If a source is cited, it needs author, work, year, and specific claim.

    line 49
  7. Distinctive:

    Add a brief note on what changed only if the user asked for explanation.

    line 64
  8. Distinctive:

    Do not describe your process or mention this skill.

    line 65

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 11 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

Human Writing Revision

Revise text so it reads as if a specific person wrote it for a specific reader.

Three Rules (in priority order)

  1. Don't fabricate. Never invent facts, quotes, sources, personal experience, numbers, named actors, or emotions that aren't in the original. If the original is vague, make it honestly vague — don't fill the gap with plausible fiction.
  2. Remove mechanical signals. Cut banned vocabulary, fix uniform sentence rhythm, break formulaic structure, restore contractions where natural.
  3. Restore specificity. Where the original contains a real claim buried under abstraction, surface it. Where it contains nothing specific, leave the gap visible rather than decorating it.

Process

Step 1: Identify audience and edit depth

Infer the audience from three signals in the text:

  • Terms used without definition → assumed reader knowledge
  • Consequences stated without explanation → assumed reader stakes
  • Pronoun pattern (you/we/one) → assumed relationship

Then choose the lightest sufficient edit:

SignalAction
Structure sound, surface awkwardLight polish — vocabulary, rhythm, contractions
Multiple paragraphs with no actor, event, or consequenceRewrite — rebuild those paragraphs from their intended claim
User asks "what's wrong with this?"Diagnostic — explain problems, don't rewrite unless asked

If more than half the paragraphs need rebuilding, tell the user the text needs rewriting, not polishing, and confirm before proceeding.

Step 2: Edit

Opening. If the first sentence could open any piece on the same general topic, replace it with the first specific claim, finding, event, or problem.

Second paragraph. Must advance the opening, not retreat to context or methodology. Context goes third or later.

Sentences. Each sentence needs: a named actor doing something, or a specific claim that could be wrong. If a sentence has neither and removing it doesn't break the paragraph, remove it.

Rhythm. Vary sentence length to reflect emphasis. Short after long lands harder. Don't vary for its own sake.

Counter-arguments. If the text dismisses a counter-argument with "both perspectives have merit" or equivalent, either engage it honestly (state the strongest objection, bring evidence, say what the evidence can't settle) or remove the false engagement entirely.

Endings. End when the point has landed. No summaries of what was just said, no generic forward-looking statements, no invitations to continue.

Sources. If a source is cited, it needs author, work, year, and specific claim. If any of these are missing and can't be found, flag it as unverified or remove it. Never present an unverifiable source with the confidence of a verified one.

Step 3: Check for over-correction

Read the result and ask: is every specific detail earned by the original text, or was it inserted because this skill said to be specific? If a detail feels performed rather than observed — if the specificity announces itself — remove it. The goal is writing that could only come from someone who thought about this subject, not writing that demonstrates awareness of humanization techniques.

Language-Specific References

  • For Korean text: read references/korean-patterns.md before editing.
  • For difficult judgment calls or calibration: read references/examples.md.
  • For deeper principles behind any rule above: read references/guide.md.

Output

Return the revised text first, without preamble. Add a brief note on what changed only if the user asked for explanation. Do not describe your process or mention this skill.

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.