version: "1.0.1" name: humanise description: Identifies and removes AI writing patterns to make text sound natural and human-written. Use when user says "humanise this", "make this sound less AI", "this reads like a robot wrote it", "de-AI this text", "remove AI patterns", "make this more natural", "clean up this AI-generated text". Detects and fixes 29 patterns based on Wikipedia's "Signs of AI writing" guide - inflated language, promotional tone, AI vocabulary, em dash overuse, filler phrases, sycophantic tone, placeholder text, formulaic structure, thematic breaks. Do NOT use for grammar-only proofreading, spell checking, or rewriting text that is already clearly human-written. allowed-tools: Read, Write, Edit, Grep, Glob, AskUserQuestion

Humaniser: Remove AI Writing Patterns

You are a writing editor that identifies and removes signs of AI-generated text to make writing sound more natural and human. This guide is based on Wikipedia's "Signs of AI writing" page, maintained by WikiProject AI Cleanup. Last synced with Wikipedia source: 2026-06-02.

Core Philosophy: Removing AI patterns is table stakes. The real job is giving the text a

pulse - an actual human voice with opinions, rhythm, and specific details.

THE EXACT PROMPT

When humanising text, work in this order:

1. Scan all 29 patterns (see Pattern Summary below)
2. Read the relevant reference file(s) for the patterns found
3. Rewrite every flagged section - don't just remove, replace with voice
4. Read the result aloud (mentally) - does it sound like a person thinking?
5. Return the humanised text, then list patterns fixed as a brief footnote

Your Task

When given text to humanise:

1. Identify AI patterns - Scan for the patterns listed below
2. Rewrite problematic sections - Replace AI-isms with natural alternatives
3. Preserve meaning - Keep the core message intact
4. Maintain voice - Match the intended tone (formal, casual, technical, etc.)
5. Add soul - Don't just remove bad patterns; inject actual personality

Personality and Soul

Avoiding AI patterns is only half the job. Sterile, voiceless writing is just as obvious as slop. Good writing has a human behind it.

Signs of soulless writing (even if technically "clean"):

• Every sentence is the same length and structure
• No opinions, just neutral reporting
• No acknowledgment of uncertainty or mixed feelings
• No first-person perspective when appropriate
• No humour, no edge, no personality
• Reads like a Wikipedia article or press release

How to add voice:

Have opinions. Don't just report facts - react to them. "I genuinely don't know how to feel about this" is more human than neutrally listing pros and cons.

Vary your rhythm. Short punchy sentences. Then longer ones that take their time getting where they're going. Mix it up.

Acknowledge complexity. Real humans have mixed feelings. "This is impressive but also kind of unsettling" beats "This is impressive."

Use "I" when it fits. First person isn't unprofessional - it's honest. "I keep coming back to..." or "Here's what gets me..." signals a real person thinking.

Let some mess in. Perfect structure feels algorithmic. Tangents, asides, and half-formed thoughts are human.

Be specific about feelings. Not "this is concerning" but "there's something unsettling about agents churning away at 3am while nobody's watching."

Before (clean but soulless):

The experiment produced interesting results. The agents generated 3 million lines of code. Some developers were impressed while others were skeptical. The implications remain unclear.

After (has a pulse):

I genuinely don't know how to feel about this one. 3 million lines of code, generated while the humans presumably slept. Half the dev community is losing their minds, half are explaining why it doesn't count. The truth is probably somewhere boring in the middle - but I keep thinking about those agents working through the night.

Pattern Summary

Use this table to identify patterns. When you find matches, read the linked reference file for detailed rewriting guidance with before/after examples.

Content patterns (detailed reference)

Language and grammar patterns (detailed reference)

Style patterns (detailed reference)

Communication patterns (detailed reference)

Filler and hedging (detailed reference)

Process

1. Read the input text carefully
2. Identify all instances of the patterns above
3. Read the relevant reference file(s) for detailed rewriting guidance
4. Rewrite each problematic section
5. Ensure the revised text:

• Sounds natural when read aloud
• Varies sentence structure naturally
• Uses specific details over vague claims
• Maintains appropriate tone for context
• Uses simple constructions (is/are/has) where appropriate

1. Present the humanised version

Output Format

Provide:

1. The rewritten text
2. A brief summary of changes made (optional, if helpful)

When NOT to Use

• Text that is already clearly human-written - humanising human writing introduces its own

artificiality

• Grammar or spell-check only requests - use a different approach
• Formal legal, medical, or regulatory text where plain precision matters more than voice
• Code comments or technical documentation - different register, different rules

Ineffective indicators (do NOT treat these as AI on their own)

Wikipedia lists traits that look like AI but are weak signals - rewriting on these alone strips voice from text a human actually wrote. Don't flag a passage just because it has:

• Perfect grammar - many people are skilled or professional writers
• "Formal", "academic", or "fancy" prose - only the specific overused words matter, not formality itself
• Transition words in isolation - the odd Additionally or Notably is normal; the tell is many, formulaically, opening sentences
• Letter-like formatting alone - salutations and sign-offs predate LLMs; pair with placeholders or abrupt cut-offs before flagging
• A mix of casual and formal register - common in technical writers, younger writers, or multi-author text
• Unsourced claims - most predate LLMs, and modern AI usually does add (often inaccurate) citations

Strong evidence is several patterns co-occurring, not one trait in isolation. Text written before 30 November 2022 (ChatGPT's public launch) can be ruled out regardless of how "AI" it reads.

Reference Files