Humanize

/humanize — AI-voice audit (detect-and-flag)

Read the target file (or all paper-like files), audit for the canonical AI-voice tells in academic prose, and write a structured report. The skill does not rewrite. The author edits.

Why this skill exists

Referees and editors increasingly recognise AI-generated prose. The tells are not stylistic preferences — they're statistically conspicuous patterns the LLM training distribution produces at higher rates than human academic writers. Five reasons to audit before submission:

1. Reviewer suspicion is a tax. Even good substance pays a credibility tax if the prose reads as AI-drafted.
2. Journal policy is tightening. A growing number of venues require disclosure or prohibit AI-drafted text.
3. AI tells signal weak content. Boilerplate transitions ("Moreover", "It is important to note") almost always cover up logical gaps the author didn't think through.
4. You are not the tells. Even authors who use AI tools heavily can preserve their own voice by stripping the model's lexical fingerprint.
5. The fix is cheap once you can see it. The cost is detection, not rewriting — once the report flags the tells, removal is mechanical.

What this skill is NOT

• Not a rewriter. No --rewrite mode. An automatic rewriter introduces its own tells and cannot change what a neural detector sees (see writing-with-ai.md); the author preserves voice by editing manually.
• Not a substance reviewer. Use /review-paper for argument structure, identification, citations.
• Not a grammar checker. Use /proofread for grammar, typos, overflow, citation format.
• Not a fact-checker. Use /verify-claims for Chain-of-Verification fact-checking of citations and numeric claims.

/humanize is the voice lens. Run it alongside the others — none of them substitute.

When to use

• Before journal submission.
• Before posting a working paper / preprint / SSRN draft.
• After any AI-assisted prose generation (R&R response drafts, lit-review synthesis, abstract revisions).
• As a self-discipline pass after long writing sessions — your own writing drifts toward LLM patterns when you stare at LLM output all day.

When NOT to use

• On .bib, .R, or other non-prose files — the detectors are tuned for academic prose.
• On code comments — the tells are different.
• On UI/UX copy — voice norms diverge.

Detection categories

The humanize-auditor agent checks these category groups:

1. BOILERPLATE TRANSITIONS

High-confidence AI tells when they appear sentence-initial or mid-paragraph as connective tissue:

• Moreover, / Furthermore, / Additionally, / In addition,
• It is important to note that / It is worth noting that / Notably,
• In conclusion, / In summary, / To summarise,
• On the other hand, (when not contrasting two named things)
• Building on this, / Building upon this,
• As we can see, / As is evident, / Indeed, (stacked)

Severity: HIGH if more than 1 per 1000 words. MED if 1 per 2000 words. LOW if rare but present.

2. AI-CLICHÉ LEXICON

Words and phrases statistically over-represented in LLM output relative to academic prose:

• "navigate the complexities", "navigate the landscape"
• "delve into", "delve deeper into"
• "tapestry of", "rich tapestry"
• "robust framework", "comprehensive framework", "holistic framework"
• "comprehensive approach" / "multifaceted approach" / "nuanced approach" (especially when stacked)
• "leverage" (as a verb in non-finance / non-engineering contexts)
• "in today's [X] landscape" / "in today's rapidly evolving"
• "play a crucial role" / "play a pivotal role" / "play a significant role"
• "shed light on"
• "underscore the importance" / "highlight the importance"
• "It is essential to" / "It is crucial to"

Severity: HIGH on a paper's first three pages (abstract, intro). MED elsewhere.

3. EM-DASH AND PUNCTUATION OVERUSE

• Em-dash overuse — more than 3 em-dashes per paragraph is a tell.
• Semicolon stacks — three or more semicolons in a single paragraph.
• Triple-Oxford-comma constructions — lists of three with deliberate parallelism repeated paragraph-to-paragraph.

Severity: MED. Em-dashes are a legitimate authorial choice; flag overuse, not all use.

4. SYMMETRIC PARAGRAPH SHAPES

Paragraphs with the same micro-architecture: topic sentence → three examples → summarising clause. Repeated across consecutive paragraphs is the AI tell — not the shape itself.

Detection: flag any three-paragraph window where each paragraph fits the topic→examples→summary cadence.

Severity: MED if 3-paragraph window; HIGH if 5+ paragraph stretch.

5. TRICOLON ABUSE

"X, Y, and Z" three-element lists are a legitimate rhetorical device. Tells are:

• More than 4 tricolons per page.
• Tricolons used for items that could naturally be 2 or 4.
• Adjective tricolons stacked ("clear, concise, and compelling"; "rigorous, robust, and reliable").

Severity: LOW if rare; MED if patterned.

6. HEDGING STACKING

Stacked epistemic hedges in single sentences:

• "might potentially be argued"
• "could possibly suggest"
• "may arguably"
• "perhaps potentially"

Severity: HIGH — these are almost never authorial choices; they're LLM uncertainty-management.

7. "NOT ONLY X, BUT ALSO Y" FRAMES

Used sparingly, this is a legitimate construction. AI tells:

• More than 2 per paper.
• Used when X and Y are not actually parallel.
• Used as paragraph openers.

Severity: MED.

8. FORMULAIC OPENERS

• Section openers of the form "This [paper / chapter / section / analysis] [does X]."
• Paragraph openers that re-state the section title.
• Abstract opening with "In this paper, we..." (legitimate in some sub-fields; flag for review where it's atypical, e.g., AER abstracts rarely use it).

Severity: LOW unless every section starts this way.

9. HYPHENATION EXCESS

Long chains of compound modifiers as a paragraph signature:

• "data-driven", "evidence-based", "well-suited", "well-established", "long-standing" — fine individually; flag if three or more appear in a single paragraph.

Severity: LOW.

10. SYCOPHANCY / SELF-IMPORTANT FRAMING

• "This important contribution"
• "This significant finding"
• "Our novel approach"
• Self-citation as "groundbreaking" / "pioneering"

Severity: HIGH — these read as AI-generated promotional copy; referees will react badly.