shorts-audio
Skill38 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
Clean the audio on a talking-head recording without making it sound processed — constant-gain loudness, rumble removal, and when (not) to denoise. Use when recording audio sounds weird, artificial, pumping, quiet, or noisy, or when asked to denoise or normalize a video's audio.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- timscheuerai/gtm-architecture-templatetheir own version, first seen Sep 14, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- timscheuerai/gtm-architecture-template★ 2same 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 repository18 other files it gives its agents.
- graphics-designerSkill
- launch-videoSkill
- lead-magnet-creatorSkill
- linkedin-copywriterSkill
- long-formSkill
- newsletter-writerSkill
- repurposeSkill
- researcherSkill
- shorts-cutSkill
- shorts-editSkill
- shorts-motionSkill
- shorts-qaSkill
- video-useSkill
- x-copywriterSkill
- youtube-descriptionSkill
- youtube-publisherSkill
- youtube-scriptSkill
- youtube-thumbnailSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. About 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈0
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 54
If a genuinely noisy take needs help, print12@50 (a 50% blend) was the best compromise.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
shorts-audio
Stage 2 of shorts-edit. Two traps, both silent, both cost hours.
Quiet recordings cause both. The reference takes sat at −43 LUFS and needed +26 dB.
TRAP A: loudnorm silently pumps
loudnorm with linear=true promises a single constant gain.
It abandons that promise without warning whenever the required gain would push the true peak past the ceiling — which +26 dB always does. It falls back to dynamic mode: per-frame gain riding. Pumping, breathing, a squashed unnatural tone.
This — not the denoiser — was the actual cause of "the audio sounds artificial". Removing the denoiser alone did not fix it, which is exactly why it cost so much time.
Fix: never use loudnorm for gain. Measure the true peak, apply ONE constant
volume=XdB that lands it at −1.5 dBTP, and accept whatever LUFS falls out.
Verified pure: correlation 0.999975 with the source waveform, residual 43 dB down (just AAC noise), no limiter ever engaged. Mathematically, the output is the input times a number.
TRAP B: every denoiser reconstructs the voice, and you can hear it
afftdn with tn=1 (blind tracking) guesses the noise spectrum moment to moment.
Guessing wrong is precisely what makes musical burbling.
Learning the profile from real silence in the take is far better — asendcmd … sn
start/stop around the longest silence:
| chain | noise reduction | speech level |
| highpass 60Hz only | 11.2 dB | −0.1 dB |
| RNNoise (arnndn) | 17.6 dB | −0.1 dB |
| learned print, nr=12 | 23.0 dB | −0.1 dB |
And it still didn't ship. On headphones, every spectral denoiser — blind, learned, even a 50/50 wet/dry blend — was audible as an unnatural tone, because they all reconstruct the signal rather than merely attenuating it. The user listened to all of them and chose the honest one.
SHIPPED: no denoiser.
highpass=f=60+ a constant gain. Nothing else.
If a genuinely noisy take needs help, print12@50 (a 50% blend) was the best compromise.
Two ordering rules that silently defeat the filters
- The denoiser must run BEFORE the trims. Its
asendcmdtimestamps point at silence in the ORIGINAL take, and the edit throws that silence away. Applied after the cut, the sample window falls outside the clip, the command never fires, and afftdn quietly reverts to blind mode — the exact thing that sounded fake. The floor betrays it: −54 dB (blind) vs −64.8 dB (learned). - Gain must precede ANY denoiser. RNNoise is trained on speech at normal levels. Fed −68 dBFS audio it sees silence and does literally nothing (measured: 0 dB of extra reduction). Gain it first and the same filter removes 23 dB.
What did NOT work
- A noise gate. Intuitive — mute the gaps — and useless: after the edit the cut is 96% speech. There are no gaps left to gate. The audible noise is under the voice.
- Notch filters. The noise looked like 60Hz mains harmonics at coarse FFT resolution. At fine resolution it isn't: 69% of the voice-band noise is broadband room tone. Notching mangled the voice (correlation 0.77) to buy 3 dB.
The mono-SFX clipping trap
amix negotiates a common channel layout. A mono SFX bed makes it pick mono, which
silently downmixes the stereo voice — and that downmix pushed the peak from −1.62 dB to
+0.83 dB (clipping). Pin aformat=channel_layouts=stereo on both sides of the mix.
Known tradeoff: the clips are quiet (−18 to −23 LUFS)
Peak-normalizing with no limiting and no compression lands below the −14/−16 social norm. That is the honest ceiling for zero dynamics processing; getting louder means compressing, which is what was rejected. Platforms normalize on playback.
The real fix is at the source: raise the input gain when recording.
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.

