writing-for-humans

Reviews and rewrites artifact prose against a catalogue of AI writing tells.

3|Updated Jan 10, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/MaxWolf-01/agents --skill writing-for-humans-maxwolf-01
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: writing-for-humans
Source: https://github.com/MaxWolf-01/agents/tree/main/mx/skills/writing-for-humans
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/MaxWolf-01/agents --skill writing-for-humans-maxwolf-01

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

💡 This Skill includes scripts (resource) components.

What problem does it solve? Text written by AI assistants carries recognizable patterns: filler phrases, em dash overuse, vague attributions, sycophantic openers, and conversation residue that only makes sense to the session that produced it. This Skill gives an agent a concrete, citable rule set to detect and remove those patterns from docs, READMEs, docstrings, comments, UI copy, commit messages, and chat replies. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Rule catalogue with stable ids: CATALOGUE.md holds dozens of named tells (AI vocabulary, rule of three, throat-clearing, nominalizations, false agency), each tagged by scope (artifact, chat, or both) so a finding can cite a rule id, quote the hit, and name the fix. - Cold-reader and single-source principles: SKILL.md adds structural rules beyond the catalogue, covering conversation residue (change narration, reviewer reassurance), one authoritative home per fact, and referencing tickets by title rather than bare ids. - Automated chat review hook: chat_review.py is a Claude Code Stop hook that runs a small reviewer model over each final reply against the chat-scoped rules, feeds flagged passages back for revision, fails open on errors, and logs every decision as JSONL. - Use Case: Run the skill on a drafted README to strip phrases like "seamlessly", "it's important to note", and "In today's fast-paced landscape", replacing them with plain statements of fact, or install the hook so every chat reply is screened before the user sees it. ## Quick Start Ask the agent to review a file with the writing-for-humans skill, for example: de-slop docs/guide.md against the AI prose catalogue and rewrite every flagged sentence.

Frequently Asked Questions about writing-for-humans

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema
How do I remove AI writing patterns from a README or docs file?

Invoke the skill on the file and it reads every sentence against the catalogue in CATALOGUE.md, flagging tells like filler phrases, em dashes, vague attributions, and rule-of-three structures. Each finding cites a rule id, quotes the passage, and names the fix, then the text is rewritten or the hit reported.

What are common signs of AI-generated text?

The catalogue names dozens: words like delve, crucial, and tapestry, constructions like "not just X, but Y", em dash and colon overuse, sycophantic openers like "Great question!", and formulaic closers like "In summary". One match may be coincidence; several co-occurring is the tell.

How does the chat review Stop hook work in Claude Code?

The chat_review.py hook runs a small reviewer model (default haiku) over each final assistant message against the chat-scoped catalogue rules. Flagged passages are fed back as additionalContext so the turn continues and the reply is revised; a reviewer that errors or times out fails open and lets the reply through.

Can I disable the automated chat review for some sessions?

Yes. Set CHAT_REVIEW_OFF to any value to turn the hook off entirely. It also skips automatically for dispatched workers (DISPATCH_WORKLOG set), print-mode sessions (CLAUDE_CODE_SESSION_ATTENDED=0), empty messages, and re-entries after its own feedback.

What is the difference between artifact and chat scoped rules?

Each catalogue rule carries a scope tag: artifact rules bind text that ships in a file, chat rules bind replies the user reads, and both apply everywhere. The chat review hook selects only chat and both rules, while a file review pass applies the full catalogue.

When should a documented project style override the catalogue rules?

A documented repo standard wins where it endorses something a rule would flag. The catalogue treats non-punctuation rules as named heuristics rather than absolute violations, so findings cite the rule and quote the hit instead of asserting an error.