clarity
Skill0 starsChanged 52 days agoMITView on GitHub
Removes AI-generated tells from prose. On public-facing writing (READMEs, portfolio copy, notebook entries) it flags and proposes rewrites, never rewriting silently. On an agent's own end-of-task report or PR description it applies the fixes while drafting. Judges by frequency and context, never by blanket bans. Skips commit messages, private notes and fiction unless asked.
11 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- raditia/CraftKittheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- harlan-zw/brundleflytheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- JBSommeling/claude-configtheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- jackson2w/claude-code-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- rogue-dev-studio/ai-agents-roguetheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- getedgehq/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
Other versions11 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 11
- addyosmani/clarity★ 219same name
- harlan-zw/brundlefly★ 7same name
- getedgehq/skills★ 5same name
- rogue-dev-studio/ai-agents-rogue★ 2same name
- X-FRI/skills★ 2same name
- cemkazim/claude-skill-clarity★ 1same name
- Claude-Mem/clarity★ 1same name
- jackson2w/claude-code-skills★ 1same name
- raditia/CraftKit★ 1same name
- bob-bach/clarity★ 0same name
1 more not listed
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 repository9 other files it gives its agents.
- adversarySkill
- contextSkill
- dev-councilSkill
- handoffSkill
- impactSkill
- reflectSkill
- scopeSkill
- technical-writingSkill
- verifySkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 11 edited versions we read keep these.
2
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
- Distinctive: line 16
Ask, or infer from context, which mode applies:
- Distinctive: line 29
Read the full piece once for content, don't flag mid-read
“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.
Files
Clarity
Reviews writing for AI-generated tells and proposes fixes, but never at the cost of turning good writing mechanical. See references/pattern-reference.md for the full tiered pattern list before running a pass.
The rule this skill can't violate
No absolute bans. Every flag is "here's a pattern, here's why, here's a suggested fix", never a silent rewrite, never a rule shaped like "never use X." The one exception is the agent's own draft in report mode (below): there is no one to propose to, so it applies the fixes while writing. In particular, don't ban em dashes outright, as some prose-cleanup rule sets do. Punctuation and rhetorical choices get judged by frequency and fit, not banned by category.
Domain scoping, decide this before running
Ask, or infer from context, which mode applies:
Technical/professional mode (engineering notebook, portfolio, READMEs, docs, PR descriptions someone else wrote): apply the full pattern reference normally. Puffery, empty superlatives, and AI vocabulary are almost always worth cutting here. First-person voice and stated opinion are usually strengths, not tells, in this register.
Fiction mode (a personal fiction project, whatever that looks like for the installer): Tier 3 patterns are off by default. Elevated diction, ceremonial phrasing, and structural repetition may be deliberate stylistic choices serving character voice or mythic register, not AI tells. Only run Tier 1 (true filler/empty-superlative cuts) unless the user explicitly asks for a full pass. When in doubt on a fiction passage, flag it as a question rather than a recommendation: "this reads either as intentional elevated register or as a tell. Which is it?"
Report mode (an end-of-task report or PR description the agent is writing itself): apply Tier 1 and Tier 2 while drafting, silently, with no findings list. These are read by the owner on every task, so filler, hedging and puffery cost the most here. Structure comes from technical-writing; this skill only removes the tells.
Internal/private mode (commit messages, working notes): this skill should not fire here by default. If asked to run anyway, treat it as technical mode but hold every flag to a higher bar. Internal writing doesn't need the same polish as anything public-facing.
Workflow
- Confirm or infer the domain (above) before scanning anything
- Read the full piece once for content, don't flag mid-read
- Scan against
references/pattern-reference.md, tier by tier - For Tier 1: flag directly, propose a specific rewrite
- For Tier 2: report as a pattern across the piece ("X appears N times"), not per-instance flags, and only if density is actually high
- For Tier 3: only in technical mode by default; in fiction mode, only flag as a question, never a recommendation
- Present findings as an annotated list (passage, tier, reasoning, suggested fix) and stop. The user decides what changes, this skill doesn't publish or auto-edit.
Output format
Flagged (Tier 1, recommend cut):
"...this represents a pivotal moment for the platform..."
→ Puffery, no specific claim underneath. Suggest: state what actually changed.
Pattern (Tier 2, density check):
"...the rollback was clean — three commands — and the incident closed in
under an hour..."
Em dash used 5 times across 3 paragraphs, same aside-construction each time.
→ Not individually wrong, but the repetition reads as a tell. Consider varying
the construction in 2-3 of these.
Question (Tier 3, fiction mode, not auto-flagged):
"...a testament to the elder's restraint..." (formal third-person narration)
→ Could be intentional elevated register for the character, or a tell.
Flagging for your judgment, not proposing a change.Calibration
This skill gets better specifically by learning the installer's actual voice, not a generic one. If a Tier 2 or Tier 3 flag turns out to be wrong more than once (something genuinely the writer's style getting mistaken for a tell), note it. Over time the pattern reference should get a "confirmed voice, stop flagging" list specific to constructions this writer actually uses on purpose. This calibration list is per-installer, local, and never ships pre-filled. Someone installing this skill starts with an empty calibration list that fills in from their own corrections, not from anyone else's.
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.

