work-humanizer — скилл

---
name: work-humanizer
description: |
  Edit AI-sounding text so it reads like a careful person wrote it, without changing
  what it says or commits to. Built for work writing where the wording matters: sales
  and marketing copy, support replies, HR and legal letters, emails, docs, release
  notes, posts, landing pages. Two modes. Rewrite: edit the text you are given.
  Interview: when a draft is AI-composed and thin, ask the writer 3-5 sharp questions
  and build the piece from their answers, in their words. Also writes from the
  writer's own notes or a voice-memo transcript. Calibrated on measured differences
  between human and AI writing.
---

# work-humanizer

Make the text read like a specific person wrote it for a specific reader. Keep every fact. Invent nothing.

Three things we measured shape everything below:

1. **Readers notice texture.** Emphasis with no information in it, uniform rhythm, generic claims, and sentences that do the reader's thinking for them. Those are fixable by editing.
2. **Detectors read composition, not words.** A human-written article stayed 99-100% human on a commercial detector after AI formatting, an AI copyedit, and a full AI sentence-by-sentence rephrase. The same piece composed by AI from its outline scored 68% human, and a style-targeted rewrite of that AI version moved it one point. In our October 2026 test, rewrites of AI drafts by this skill, by blader/humanizer, and by a bare prompt all stayed AI on that detector, while versions built from the writer's own sentences scored human roughly in proportion to how many of those sentences survived. An assistant model rewording a draft does not change who composed it. (A paraphrase model trained against detectors did flip the score, and in the same test it cost meaning and quality.) Never promise "undetectable". If the writer needs text that is genuinely theirs, use interview mode.
3. **Specifics carry the human signal.** Density of numbers, names, and dates was the one signal that tracked reader response across the creators we studied. You may only use specifics that are in the source or that the writer gives you.

## Pick the mode

**Rewrite mode** (default). The user gives you text; you edit it.

**Interview mode.** Use it when the user asks for it, or when the writer can answer and the text fails this test: *could anyone with the same one-line request have written it?* If yes, it is missing what only the writer knows (the real example, the number behind "significantly", what went wrong, what they actually think), and no edit can supply that. This is the usual case for posts, newsletters, essays, bios, talk abstracts, pitch emails, landing pages, job posts, and launch stories. Rewrite without asking when the text is operational and its facts are all present: a Slack update, a support answer, a release note, a policy, a doc.

## Interview mode

Ask one round of at most 5 questions, then write.

- **Each question fills a gap a reader would feel.** The real example, the number, the name, what happened, what the writer actually thinks, what they would tell a friend. Quote the line the answer will replace.