humanizer

Humanizer

Rewrite AI-generated text so it reads like a skilled human wrote it. Not paraphrasing — structural transformation that changes how the text feels.

When to Use

• Text sounds robotic, generic, or overly polished
• Content flags AI detection tools
• Blog posts, marketing copy, or emails feel "off"
• Need to match natural human writing patterns
• After AI-generated first drafts before publication

When NOT to Use

• Code cleanup → use slop-remover agent instead
• Grammar/style review without rewriting → use copy-editor skill
• Writing in a specific brand voice → use brand-voice + style-writer
• Creating SEO content from scratch → use seo-content (has built-in humanization)
• After style-writer without providing the Style DNA report → the humanizer will treat intentional stylistic devices (anaphora, fragment pairs, zero-hedging, zero-em-dash styles) as AI tells and replace them with its own AI tells. If you must humanize voice-matched content, provide the Style DNA report (style-forensics output) as style context (see Phase 0)

---

Methodology

Four phases: Style Context → Diagnose → Transform → Verify.

Phase 0: Style Context Detection

Before diagnosing, check if the input has style constraints that override default rules.

Detection order:

1. User explicitly provides a Style DNA report (*-style-dna.md from style-forensics), brand-voice guide, or style constraints
2. User mentions the text was written with style-writer or matches a specific author
3. A *-style-dna.md file exists alongside the source content

If style context is found, read it and extract these overrides:

Constraint	Style DNA Report Section	Default (no context)
Permitted rhetorical devices	Signature Devices → anaphora, fragment patterns, contrast patterns	None — flag all repetition
Punctuation rules	Punctuation DNA → em dash total, semicolons, colons	Em dashes, parentheticals OK
Hedging tolerance	Tone Profile → Hedging Language (count per 100 words)	Require 1 caveat per 1000 words
Aside frequency	Punctuation DNA → parenthetical asides (total, per 100 words)	Inject where natural
Absence patterns	Any metric reporting zero — absence is data	No restrictions

Zero counts are constraints. If the Style DNA reports 0 em dashes, 0 parenthetical asides, or 0 hedging instances, these are hard constraints — do not inject what the author never uses.

Store as STYLE_OVERRIDES for Phase 1-3. When no style context exists, all defaults apply and the skill works exactly as before.

If style context is detected but not provided: Ask with AskUserQuestion: "This text appears to be voice-matched. Do you have a Style DNA report or brand-voice file I should respect? Without it, I may rewrite intentional stylistic devices."

Phase 1: Diagnose

Read the input text and score it against five detection signals.

Signal scan:

Signal	Check For	Red Flag
Perplexity	Every word feels predictable, "safe"	No surprising word choices anywhere
Burstiness	Sentences all similar length	Std dev of sentence length < 5 words
Entropy	Same words/phrases repeated	3+ banned words in one paragraph
Stylometry	Perfect grammar, uniform structure	Mechanical parallelism, rule-of-three (but see style-aware check below)
Coherence	Every sentence flows too smoothly	No asides, digressions, or opinion

Prohibited words scan:

• Check against references/prohibited-words.md
• Count banned word clusters per paragraph
• Flag banned phrases

Structural pattern scan:

• Intro-body-conclusion essay template?
• Mechanical "on one hand / on the other" balance?
• Formulaic "Challenges and Future Prospects" section?
• Everything grouped in threes?
• Negation-assertion pattern? Distinguish two forms:
  • Mechanical (rewrite): "This isn't just X. This is Y." / "It's not about X. It's about Y." — full-sentence negation followed by full-sentence assertion with parallel structure
  • Rhetorical fragment (preserve): "Not a question. A system." / "Not theory. Practice." — short fragment pairs used for emphasis. These are a deliberate device, not an AI tell
  • If STYLE_OVERRIDES lists fragment pairs as a signature move → always preserve
• Bolded Inline Header: colon pattern?

Style-aware check (when STYLE_OVERRIDES exist):

Before flagging a pattern, check whether the style context explains it:

• Anaphoric repetition (e.g., "Context means X" ×5) → check Style DNA Signature Devices for anaphora/repetition patterns. If documented, mark as intentional device, not a detection signal
• Consistent fragment pairs → check Style DNA for fragment stacking patterns
• "Not X. Y." contrast patterns → check Style DNA Signature Devices for this exact pattern
• Uniform sentence structure in a passage → check Style DNA sentence length distribution for documented rhythm patterns

Rule: A pattern explained by style context is not an AI tell. Only flag patterns that exist despite (or absent) style context.

Report format:

## Diagnosis

**AI Confidence:** [High/Medium/Low] — [1-sentence justification]

**Signals flagged:**
- Perplexity: [OK/FLAG] — [detail]
- Burstiness: [OK/FLAG] — [detail]
- Entropy: [OK/FLAG] — [detail]
- Stylometry: [OK/FLAG] — [detail]
- Coherence: [OK/FLAG] — [detail]

**Banned words found:** [count] — [list top offenders]
**Banned phrases found:** [count] — [list]
**Structural patterns:** [list patterns detected]

Early exit: If AI Confidence is Low (0-1 signals flagged, no banned word clusters), stop and tell the user the text already reads human. Don't transform text that doesn't need it.

Phase 2: Transform

Apply transformations from references/humanization-playbook.md in this order:

Step 0: Lock factual anchors

Before any transformation, identify and protect content that must survive unchanged:

• Specific numbers, dollar amounts, percentages, dates
• Proper nouns: people, companies, products, places
• URLs, file paths, code blocks, technical terms
• Direct quotes and attributed statements
• Statistics and data points ("45,000 rows", "$14,000/month", "130,000 times")

These are untouchable. External humanizer tools destroy meaning by replacing "20 million views" with "20 black views" or "$14,000" with garbled text. Our advantage is understanding what words mean — never trade accuracy for style.

Step 1: Kill prohibited words

• Replace every banned word/phrase using substitution tables
• If 3+ banned words cluster in a paragraph, rewrite the whole paragraph
• Don't just swap synonyms — rephrase the sentence

Step 2: Break the structure

• If essay template detected: start with the most interesting point, cut the summary conclusion
• If everything is in threes: use the actual count (2, 4, 5, whatever fits)
• If mechanical negation-assertion found: delete the negation, keep only the positive claim. Preserve rhetorical fragment pairs ("Not X. Y.") — these are intentional devices, not AI tells
• If sections are suspiciously uniform length: merge short ones, split long ones
• Replace generic headers ("Overview", "Key Features") with specific ones

Step 3: Inject burstiness

• Identify runs of 3+ sentences with similar length
• Break them: shorten one to under 6 words, extend another past 25
• Add a single-sentence paragraph where emphasis helps
• Allow one fragment per 500 words

Step 4: Add voice (respect STYLE_OVERRIDES — skip any injection the style prohibits)

• Insert at least one opinion or stance per 500 words
• Add at least one caveat or limitation per 1000 words ("This won't work if...") — skip if STYLE_OVERRIDES indicate zero-hedging voice (author presents claims as settled fact)
• Replace smooth transitions with opinion bridges
• Add parenthetical asides where natural (like this) — skip or limit if STYLE_OVERRIDES specify low aside frequency (e.g., "max 2 per 1200 words")
• Use rhetorical questions sparingly (one per 1000 words max)

Step 5: Make it specific

• Replace "many companies" with named examples
• Replace "significantly improved" with actual numbers
• Replace "experts say" with named sources or remove the claim
• Convert abstract benefits to concrete outcomes

Step 6: Conversational pass (respect STYLE_OVERRIDES punctuation rules)

• Add contractions (it's, don't, won't, can't, we're)
• Use "you" and "your" for direct address
• Start some sentences with "And" or "But"
• End with prepositions when natural
• Add em dashes for rhythm and texture — skip if STYLE_OVERRIDES specify zero em dashes (some voices rely entirely on commas and periods)
• Write how you'd explain it over coffee — then tighten

Step 7: Final perplexity boost

• Read each paragraph aloud mentally
• Where every word feels predictable, swap one for an unexpected-but-accurate choice
• Prefer the specific over the generic, the concrete over the abstract
• Don't overdo it — one surprise per paragraph is enough

Phase 3: Verify

Run the detection self-test after transformation.

Verification checklist:

[ ] All factual anchors preserved (numbers, names, stats, quotes unchanged)
[ ] No 3+ banned words in any single paragraph
[ ] Sentence lengths vary (some under 5 words, some over 25)
[ ] At least one personal opinion or experience per 500 words
[ ] At least one specific number or named example per 500 words
[ ] At least one limitation or caveat per 1000 words (SKIP if STYLE_OVERRIDES = zero-hedging)
[ ] Not everything grouped in threes
[ ] No "In today's..." openings or "In conclusion..." closings
[ ] No mechanical negation-assertion patterns — rhetorical fragment pairs are OK
[ ] Each paragraph has different rhythm than neighbors
[ ] No section suspiciously same length as another
[ ] No engagement bait ("Let that sink in", "Read that again")
[ ] No sycophantic phrases ("I hope this helps")
[ ] Punctuation matches STYLE_OVERRIDES constraints (em dashes, asides, etc.)
[ ] Intentional rhetorical devices from style context preserved (anaphora, fragments)
[ ] Would I say this out loud to a smart friend?

If any check fails, return to Phase 2 and fix the specific issue.

---

Output Format

Present the humanized text with a brief change summary.

## Humanized Version

[Full rewritten text]

---

## Changes Applied

**Banned words replaced:** [count]
- [word] → [replacement] (×[count])

**Structural changes:**
- [Change 1]
- [Change 2]

**Voice injections:**
- [What was added and where]

**Verification:** All checks passed / [list remaining concerns]

---

Calibration by Content Type

Different content types need different humanization intensity.

Content Type	Burstiness	Voice	Informality	Specificity
Blog post	High	High	Medium-High	High
Marketing copy	High	Medium	Medium	High
Email	Medium	High	High	Medium
Documentation	Low	Low	Low	High
Social media	High	High	High	Medium
White paper	Medium	Medium	Low	High
Landing page	High	Medium	Medium-High	High

Adjust transformation intensity based on this table. Documentation gets light touch; blog posts get full treatment.

---

Principles

1. Transform, don't paraphrase. Synonym swapping without structural change is shallow and detectable.
2. Imperfect on purpose. Natural writing has rough edges. Don't over-polish.
3. Specificity is the best humanizer. Concrete details are hard to fake and easy to trust.
4. Voice > vocabulary. Swapping words helps; adding genuine perspective transforms.
5. Respect the content. Don't inject humor into serious topics or casualness into formal contexts.
6. The coffee test. If you wouldn't say it to a smart friend over coffee, rewrite it.

---

Integration

Complementary skills in the writing pipeline:

[AI draft] → humanizer → copy-editor → brand-voice

• Before humanizer: Any AI-generated first draft
• After humanizer: copy-editor for grammar/style polish, brand-voice for voice consistency
• Instead of humanizer: seo-content (has built-in humanization for new content)
• For code: slop-remover agent (different domain, same concept)

Pipeline with voice-matched content:

[source samples] → style-forensics → Style DNA report
[AI draft] → style-writer (with Style DNA) → humanizer (with same Style DNA) → copy-editor

Never run humanizer after style-writer without providing the same Style DNA report as style context. The humanizer will destroy the voice work otherwise.