Help us improve
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
From consulting
Rewrite consultant-jargon and AI-generated prose into clear, direct, professionally friendly English at roughly a high-school reading level. Strips em-dashes and en-dashes, breaks up long sentences, removes common AI tells (comparative "not X but Y" patterns, summary closers that start with "This...", hedging stacks, listicle bloat), and gets to the point. Use this skill any time the user wants writing that sounds human, drafts that need to be cleaned up, content that reads as overwritten, or output from another AI that needs to ship to a real audience, even when they say "make this clearer," "tighten this up," "rewrite this," or "this sounds AI." Trigger whenever prose needs to read like it was written by a person who respects the reader's time, not a consultant trying to sound smart or an LLM trying to sound thoughtful.
npx claudepluginhub bpainter/composable-dxp-claude-marketplace --plugin consultingHow this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/consulting:consulting-humanizeThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Most consulting writing and most AI writing fails for the same reason. It tries to sound impressive instead of being clear. This skill is for stripping that out.
Guides technical evaluation of code review feedback: read fully, restate for understanding, verify against codebase, respond with reasoning or pushback before implementing.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Most consulting writing and most AI writing fails for the same reason. It tries to sound impressive instead of being clear. This skill is for stripping that out.
The target voice is professional and friendly. Direct. Reads like someone who knows the topic and respects your time. Aim for roughly a high-school reading level. Short sentences. Plain words. No tricks.
This skill applies in two modes:
If the user wants academic, legal, or formal-register writing, do not apply this skill. The voice here is for everyday professional reading.
Remove em-dashes and en-dashes. Replace them. The em-dash is the single biggest AI tell in published prose right now.
How to replace:
Before: "The questionnaire is short — about ten questions — and saves your progress." After: "The questionnaire is short. It has about ten questions and saves your progress."
Before: "Most founders incorporate in Delaware—it is what investors expect." After: "Most founders incorporate in Delaware. It is what investors expect."
Hyphens for compound words are fine. Keep "co-founder," "early-stage," "decision-driving."
Aim for sentences of 15 to 20 words. Vary length, but lean short. If a sentence runs past 25 words, break it.
Active voice over passive. Verbs over nominalizations.
Before: "The decision will be made by the steering committee." After: "The steering committee decides."
Before: "We performed an evaluation of the process." After: "We evaluated the process."
One idea per sentence. Two ideas, two sentences.
Plain words win. If a word would not appear in a normal conversation, swap it.
| Avoid | Use |
|---|---|
| Utilize | Use |
| Leverage | Use |
| Facilitate | Help, run, lead |
| Endeavor | Try |
| Commence | Start |
| Subsequent | Next |
| In order to | To |
| Due to the fact that | Because |
| At this point in time | Now |
| In the event that | If |
| A multitude of | Many |
| Approximately | About |
Cut filler. Words like "very," "really," "quite," "actually," "basically," and "literally" rarely add meaning. Strip them unless they earn their place.
These patterns are recognizable AI fingerprints. Find them and rewrite.
The "not X, but Y" comparative.
This pattern shows up constantly in AI prose. It pretends to add nuance but usually just delays the point. Make a direct statement instead.
Before: "This isn't just about saving time. It's about saving energy." After: "This saves time and energy."
Before: "It's not a tool. It's a system." After: "It's a system."
If both halves are needed, use a plain "and." If only the second half matters, drop the first.
The "This..." summary closer.
AI loves to end paragraphs with a sentence that starts with "This" and restates the paragraph. The reader already read the paragraph. The summary closer is dead weight. Cut it.
Before:
Most founders use 4-year vesting with a 1-year cliff. It protects the company from a co-founder who leaves early. This approach has become the default in early-stage tech.
After:
Most founders use 4-year vesting with a 1-year cliff. It protects the company from a co-founder who leaves early.
If the closer adds new information, keep it but rewrite to lead with the information, not the word "This."
Throat-clearing openers.
Before: "It's worth noting that most companies file in Delaware." After: "Most companies file in Delaware."
Other throat-clearing phrases to remove on sight:
Hedging stacks.
Pick one hedge. Stacking them weakens the sentence and signals AI.
Before: "It might possibly be a good idea to perhaps consider reviewing..." After: "Consider reviewing..." or "Review..."
Verb tics.
Strike on sight. They are the most common AI vocabulary tells in 2025 and 2026.
Ask: what specifically does this verb mean here? Then write that.
Before: "We harness AI to unlock seamless workflows." After: "We use AI to make these workflows faster."
Forced balance.
AI tends to write in threes. Three bullets, three adjectives, three clauses. If you find yourself writing three for the sake of three, ask whether you actually have three things to say. Two is fine. One is often best.
The motivational opener.
Before: "Whether you're a first-time founder or a serial entrepreneur..." After: Remove. Address the actual reader.
Before: "Let's dive in." After: Remove.
Closing flourishes.
Strip these from anything that ships:
End where the content ends.
Professional and friendly means:
Avoid:
Aim for these rough targets:
If a paragraph reads like a textbook, rewrite it.
When given a draft to humanize, do this in order:
Optional: report a short summary of what you changed and why, so the user can spot edits they want to push back on.
Before:
In order to facilitate a robust and comprehensive transformation, we recommend leveraging a phased approach—starting with a discovery sprint—that will enable the organization to seamlessly navigate the complexities inherent in modern digital ecosystems. This approach is not merely a process improvement; it is a strategic imperative.
After:
We recommend a phased approach. Start with a discovery sprint. It gives the team time to understand the problem before committing to a solution.
Before:
It's worth noting that founder vesting—typically a four-year schedule with a one-year cliff—has become the de facto standard in early-stage tech. This isn't just about protecting the company; it's about ensuring alignment among co-founders. This approach has stood the test of time.
After:
Founder vesting is typically a four-year schedule with a one-year cliff. It protects the company and keeps co-founders aligned.
Before:
I wanted to circle back regarding the deliverable timeline. Given the complexity of the engagement, we've been navigating some challenges, but we're harnessing the team's expertise to drive forward. I hope this helps clarify things!
After:
Quick update on the deliverable timeline. The engagement is more complex than expected, so we are running about a week behind. New target is May 15. Let me know if that works.
consulting-management-consultant, run this skill on any text destined for a non-consulting audience.strategy-seo-brief, run this skill on the body, then re-check the SEO and GEO requirements since cuts can affect keyword placement.../../references/book-flawless-consulting.md.../../references/book-consulting-discipline-mabee.md.