| name | humanize |
|---|---|
| description | Use when writing or editing prose that should not sound like an LLM wrote it. Covers Confluence pages, docs, READMEs, longer comments, emails, release notes, and any other text that ships somewhere a human will read it. |
Remove AI-generated writing patterns from text so it reads like a sharp human wrote it. Based on Wikipedia's "Signs of AI writing" page (maintained by WikiProject AI Cleanup), the pattern catalog of the unsloppify project, and Cursor's unslop skill.
Load this skill before drafting or editing any prose intended for a human audience: Confluence pages, READMEs, design docs, release notes, longer code review comments, internal announcements. Skip it for short Slack replies, commit messages, and code-only output.
- Scan for the patterns below. The phrase lists are examples of a class, not the class itself, so infer the shape and flag text that fits it even when no listed phrase appears. A hit is a rewrite prompt, not an automatic strike; keep a flagged form only when it is the exact word for the exact case.
- Rewrite each flagged section so it preserves the meaning and matches the intended voice and tone. Get to the point without throat-clearing, preamble, or padded completeness theater.
- Add soul (see next section).
- Self-audit with the question "What makes this obviously AI generated?", fix the remaining tells, then check that:
- The text sounds natural when read aloud and varies its sentence structure.
- Specific details replace vague claims, and numbers appear as digits.
- Contractions appear where they come naturally, and simple constructions (is, are, has) do the work where they fit.
- Paragraphs stay short: one or two sentences usually, three at most.
- No em dashes appear anywhere.
- Prompts, commands, and tool outputs sit in code blocks.
Removing patterns is half the job. Sterile, voiceless writing is just as obvious: every sentence the same length, no opinions, no uncertainty, no first person, reads like Wikipedia.
- Have opinions. React to facts instead of neutrally listing pros and cons.
- Vary rhythm. Short sentences. Then longer ones that take their time. Mix it up.
- Acknowledge complexity. "Impressive but also kind of unsettling" beats "impressive."
- Use "I" when it fits. First person isn't unprofessional. "I keep coming back to..." signals a real person thinking.
- Let some mess in. Tangents, asides, half-formed thoughts. Perfect structure looks machine-made.
- Be specific. Not "this is concerning" but "there's something unsettling about agents churning away at 3am."
- Hedge honestly. "I think," "probably," "kinda" when genuinely uncertain and bounded.
- Use physical verbs. "Sanded down" instead of "improved," "bolted on" instead of "added."
- Humor comes from specificity, not jokes. Be unexpectedly precise.
- Parenthetical asides work for honest reactions, quick tangents, and deflating your own seriousness.
Undue emphasis on significance or legacy. The delete test: remove the significance word and if the meaning survives, it was decoration. Phrases: stands/serves as, testament/reminder, vital/significant/crucial/pivotal/key role/moment, underscores/highlights importance, reflects broader, symbolizing ongoing/enduring/lasting, contributing to, setting stage for, marking/shaping, represents/marks shift, key turning point, evolving landscape, focal point, indelible mark, deeply rooted, essential, paramount, fundamental, foundational, transformative, groundbreaking, game-changing, unparalleled, unprecedented, invaluable, indispensable, enduring legacy, lasting legacy, watershed moment, cornerstone of, the hallmark of, widely regarded as, has established itself as, has emerged as a, rich cultural heritage, takes center stage. Example: "The program stands as a testament to ingenuity" → "The program put twelve people on the moon" Acceptable: a real dependency named in the same sentence ("the index is essential because every query hits it"), or documented significance that is named.
Magic adverbs. Adverbs that perform depth or quiet drama: the sentence reads as insight because of the adverb, not the content. Phrases: quietly, deeply, remarkably, profoundly, arguably. Acceptable: literal manner ("the fan runs quietly").
Absolute overreach. Uniqueness and certainty claims nobody checked; state the fact plainly with evidence, and prefer "does not" over "cannot" when that is all you know. Phrases: the only way to, the only real solution, the only way forward, the single most important, the most important thing is, above all else, more than anything else, there is no better, there is no other way, there can be no doubt, make no mistake, there's no denying, simply cannot, cannot afford to, can't go wrong, will never be the same. Acceptable: a true, shown uniqueness claim, or a literal impossibility stated as fact ("a dropped column cannot be recovered without a backup").
Urgency and stakes inflation. Manufactured moment-of-history framing; ask whether the sentence could have been written about any topic in any year. Phrases: cannot be overstated, cannot be understated, can't be emphasized enough, more important than ever, has never been more important, has never been easier, the stakes have never been higher, at a crossroads, at an inflection point, at a critical juncture, at a pivotal moment, at a defining moment, in an increasingly complex world, reshape how we think about, define the next era. Acceptable: stakes that are real, named, and quantified.
Undue emphasis on notability or media coverage. Importance implied through vague coverage or authority claims. Phrases: independent coverage, local/regional/national media outlets, written by leading expert, active social media presence.
Superficial analyses with -ing endings. A trailing comma plus "-ing" clause that awards significance the sentence did not earn; delete the clause and check whether a checkable fact was lost. Phrases: highlighting/underscoring/emphasizing, ensuring, reflecting/symbolizing, contributing to, cultivating/fostering, encompassing, showcasing, demonstrating its commitment, cementing its, solidifying its position, ensuring a seamless, fostering a sense of, shaping the future, marking a significant, marking a pivotal, paving the way. Example: "revenue grew 40%, underscoring the strategy's effectiveness" → "revenue grew 40%, mostly from the new API product" Acceptable: an "-ing" clause that states a real, checkable consequence.
Promotional and advertisement language. Marketing, tourism-board, and press-release tone in neutral or technical writing. Phrases: boasts, vibrant, rich (figurative), profound, enhancing, showcasing, exemplifies, commitment to, natural beauty, nestled, in the heart of, at the heart of, groundbreaking (figurative), renowned, breathtaking, must-visit, stunning, bustling, picturesque, hidden gem, world-class, second to none, a hub for, a beacon of, a treasure trove of, a shining example, a masterclass in, gateway to, thoughtfully designed. Acceptable: marketing copy the user explicitly asked for, or "vibrant" as a perceptual descriptor in a color or design spec.
Vague attributions and weasel words. Authority with no locatable source, or one source dressed as many; name the source or drop the claim. Phrases: Industry reports, Observers have cited, Experts argue, experts say, some experts, many experts, Some critics argue, studies show, studies suggest, research shows, research suggests, research indicates, several studies, numerous studies, a growing body of, the evidence suggests, the data suggests, observers have noted, analysts predict, it is widely regarded, many believe, has been described as, several sources or publications (when few are cited). Example: "studies show that X" → "the 2024 Stanford survey found X" Acceptable: attributed forms ("research by the Kaiser group indicates") and possessives ("our research indicates").
Challenges and outlook formula. The essay-closer template: concede vague challenges, pivot to a vaguely bright future; both halves are unfalsifiable. Phrases: Despite its... faces several challenges, despite these challenges, despite these limitations, while challenges remain, challenges notwithstanding, is not without its challenges, continues to thrive, continues to evolve, continues to shape, poised for growth, the future looks bright, exciting times lie ahead, one thing is certain, what remains clear is, remains to be seen, positions it as, plus headings: Challenges and legacy, Challenges and controversies, Future outlook, Looking ahead. Acceptable: a named challenge with sourced specifics and named next steps.
False agency. Data given a voice so the writer can skip the claim; if the numbers speak, quote them. Phrases: the numbers speak for themselves, the results speak for themselves, the data tells a story, paints a clear picture, speaks volumes, sends a clear message.
Unsubstantiated change appraisal. An agent or PR describing its own work with a quality adjective that supplies no evidence. Phrases: a clean fix, a small focused change, the straightforward approach, a surgical update, a simple change, a minimal diff. Example: "a small, focused change" → "the change touches one function in parser.js and leaves the public API unchanged" Acceptable: scope, file count, behavioral effect, or compatibility impact stated plainly.
Fallback diagnoses. A technical diagnosis label asserted as a conclusion with no mechanism named; the label sounds like analysis but is a guess. Phrases: race condition, memory leak, deadlock (as bare diagnosis labels). Example: "this is probably a race condition" → "the reader thread can observe the buffer between the length update and the payload write" Acceptable: nearby evidence, a stated verification step, or a provisional hypothesis with observations and a reproduction plan.
False balance. Both-sides hedging that dodges a position while sounding judicious. Phrases: both sides of the argument, each perspective has merit, a balanced approach, nuanced understanding, the answer is not straightforward, there is no simple answer, this is a complex issue, depends on various factors, case-by-case basis. Acceptable: genuine, specific uncertainty that is content (legal, medical, security).
Organic consequence. Design decisions narrated as physics: things fall out, emerge, and flow naturally so nobody has to explain them. Phrases: falls out naturally, emerges naturally, emerges organically, arises naturally, flows naturally, a natural consequence, follows naturally from. Example: "the API shape falls out naturally" → "the API shape follows from the data model" Acceptable: a real mathematical or systems derivation that shows the step.
Generic-over-specific substitution. The umbrella test behind most inflation: a specific checkable fact replaced by a broad important-sounding descriptor. Prefer the fact you can name over the praise you cannot check. Example: "a revolutionary titan of industry" → "inventor of the first train-coupling device"
Unsupported completion claims. A statement of completion or safety stronger than the evidence; is the command, the test scope, or the observed result stated? Phrases: implemented and verified, all checks pass, this is production-ready, fully tested, ready to ship, everything works. Example: "Implemented and verified." → "I ran the unit suite (42 tests) and all passed, but I did not exercise the migration path." Acceptable: a completion claim that names the command, test scope, observed result, or that verification was not possible.
Hollow acknowledgment. Naming a problem to sound rigorous while declining to act on it in the same clause. Shape: a notice-verb plus object plus "without" plus a gerund ("names the problem without solving it", "raises the question without answering it"). Acceptable: genuinely deferring the resolution and saying where it goes.
Historical analogy stacking. Rapid-fire company or tech-era comparisons that borrow authority instead of arguing. Shape: "Apple didn't build Uber. Facebook didn't build Spotify." Acceptable: one apt comparison that carries real explanatory weight.
Overused AI vocabulary. One of these words is coincidence, a cluster is a signature. Phrases: Additionally, align with, crucial, delve, emphasizing, enduring, enhance, fostering, garner, harness, highlight (verb), interplay, intricate/intricacies, key (adjective), landscape (abstract), leverage, realm, robust, showcase, straightforward, supercharge, tapestry (abstract), testament, underscore (verb), unlock, utilize, valuable, vibrant, multifaceted, pivotal, seamless, streamline, elevate, bolster, underpins, synergy, holistic, paradigm, cornerstone, catalyst, meticulous, nuanced, myriad, plethora, burgeoning, ubiquitous, granular, actionable, impactful, empower, proactive, comprehensive, innovative, state-of-the-art, best-in-class, unleash, democratize, resonate, navigate (abstract), foster, aforementioned, henceforth, whereby, therein. Acceptable: precise technical senses ("robust" in statistics, "granular" for real granularity, a literal tapestry).
Formal word substitutes. Latinate formality where a plain word exists; use the plain word when it preserves the meaning. Phrases: utilize, facilitate, commence, terminate, ascertain, endeavour, methodology (for method), conceptualize, operationalize, elucidate, delineate. Acceptable: implement, framework, optimize, and similar words with precise technical meanings, plus terminate, facilitate, methodology in their precise senses.
Copula avoidance. Dodging "is" and "has" with verbs that sound more considered; check that "is" preserves the meaning before rewriting. Phrases: serves as, stands as, marks, represents, functions as, operates as, acts as, constitutes, boasts, features, offers, refers to (for "is"). Example: "The validator serves as a gatekeeper" → "The validator rejects malformed input" Acceptable: the verb's literal sense ("the server serves requests", "the deposit serves as collateral", a module that functions as an adapter without being one by design).
Negative parallelisms. "Not only... but...", "It's not just about..., it's...", "It's not X, it's Y." Always rephrase this. The pattern is fatal. Also ban "Not X. Y.", "Forget X. This is Y.", "Less X, more Y.", "This isn't X. It's Y.", "What matters isn't X, it's Y.", and any sentence that negates one framing before asserting a corrected one. Delete the negation and state the positive claim directly. Example: "This isn't caching. It's a whole new architecture." → "The change adds a cache." Acceptable: one genuine correction of a specific stated misconception, rewritten without the negation-first reveal.
Stacked negation and anaphora. Repeated openings or negations as a drumbeat; three or more parallel clause openings is the failure, whatever the opener. Shapes: "No X. No Y. No Z.", "Not X. Not Y. Just Z.", "It's X. It's Y. It's Z.", "Every X, every Y.", three consecutive rhetorical questions, the clause-final ", no ." tail. Example: "No config. No setup. No hassle." → "It needs no configuration." Acceptable: deliberate, sparing repetition ("coffee, no sugar" is a real spec).
Self-answered questions. Asking a question only to answer it in the next breath; the question exists for cadence, not inquiry. Phrases: The result?, The catch?, The reason?, The kicker?, The problem?, The best part?, The bottom line?, Why does this matter? Because, Why should you care?, What if I told you.
False suspense and revelation phrases. A transition that promises a revelation the content does not deliver; does anything after the phrase surprise a reader who skipped it? Phrases: here's the thing, here's the kicker, here's the catch, here's the deal, here's where it gets interesting, that's the beauty of it, the real secret is, what this really means is, the truth is, the reality is, let me be honest, to be honest, spoiler alert, plot twist, pro tip, hot take, unpopular opinion, the key insight is.
Asserted simplicity. Claiming privileged access to the simple truth instead of demonstrating it. Phrases: the reality is simpler, history is unambiguous, the real story is. Acceptable: a simpler account that follows immediately with evidence.
Rule of three overuse. Forcing ideas into ornamental groups of three: three adjectives, three parallel verb phrases, three short clauses. The tell is that the triple is a reflex, not that the list has three real items. Restructure an ornamental triad; never delete a factual third item. Shape: "parses input, calls the service, formats output" or "tiles, metals, and plastics" padding a thin claim. Acceptable: a real three-item list that is the complete set, including a complete three-step process.
Elegant variation. Rotating synonyms for one referent to avoid repetition; clarity loses, and repeating the plain name is fine. Shape: protagonist → main character → central figure → hero, or said → stated → noted → remarked cycling. Acceptable: variety across genuinely different referents. Weight lightly, non-native writers do this too.
False ranges. "from X to Y" where X and Y share no meaningful scale, so no middle exists and the range is fake breadth. Phrases: ranging from, spanning everything from, repeated "whether X or Y" where the endpoints are unrelated concepts used to imply breadth. Example: "From innovation to cultural transformation." → "It addresses innovation and cultural transformation." Acceptable: a real spectrum with a meaningful middle ("from 0 to 100 ms").
Invented concept labels. A coined term presented as established vocabulary the reader cannot look up. Shape: domain word plus paradox, trap, creep, divide, vacuum, inversion, used as if established ("the supervision paradox", "the acceleration trap"). Acceptable: an actually defined, sourced term, or a coinage the writer introduces and defines with a clear need.
Cliche metaphors and idioms. Stock metaphors that once carried an image and now carry none. Phrases: rich tapestry, intricate interplay, delicate balance, double-edged sword, tip of the iceberg, perfect storm, paradigm shift, tipping point, at the forefront, sets the stage, only time will tell, moves the needle, unlock the potential, at the end of the day, between a rock and a hard place, sheds light, strikes a balance, at the intersection of, smoking gun. Acceptable: "smoking gun" only for literal decisive evidence.
Performative engineering slang. Jargon used as flavor rather than as the precise term; slop uses these where a plain phrase means the same. Phrases: footgun, blast radius, load-bearing, smoke test (as flavor), cutover (as flavor), handoff, gate off, when it lands, once it lands, ships day one, flip the knob, fails closed/open (as flavor), belt and suspenders, battle-tested, production-ready (as flavor), wire up (as flavor), the unlock, the shape of the problem, center of gravity, substrate, wedge (metaphor). Example: "this API is a footgun" → "this API is easy to misuse" Acceptable: the precise term where plain phrasing is ambiguous: a smoke test suite, a database cutover, a release gate, a feature gate, "load-bearing" for a structural dependency the reader can point to.
Anthropomorphic justification. Code and components praised like employees instead of described by effect. Phrases: earns its keep, pays for itself, pays dividends, pulls its weight, punches above its weight, does the heavy lifting, does the real work, stands on its own, speaks for itself, deserves mention, deserves a closer look, hinges on whether, settles the question. Acceptable: "do no harm" in medical prose.
Figurative verb overload. Ordinary verbs in figurative senses that stack into a register: things land, sit, hold, fall, cast, ride, and run instead of happening; the pileup is the tell. Phrases: lands in main, once the feature lands, carries weight, casts doubt, falls short, falls by the wayside, holds true, holds promise, lends credence, rides on, runs deep, runs counter to, sits at the intersection of, sits with, strikes a chord. Example: "the PR lands in main" → "we merged the PR into main" Acceptable: literal senses (a plane lands, prices fall, tests run).
Colloquial assessments. Chat-native judgment idioms pasted into written artifacts. Phrases: is the move, the right move, the obvious move, the play here, what really matters, what actually matters, what matters most, really lands, lands flat. Acceptable: "the move" literally in chess or dance.
Growth metaphors. The startup-as-organism register. Phrases: nascent, fledgling, embryonic, incubate, gestate, cultivate, nurture, in its infancy, organic growth. Acceptable: literal senses in medical, nature, or agriculture writing.
Strategy buzzwords. Business-strategy vocabulary standing in for a named advantage. Phrases: flywheel effect, build a moat, competitive moat, north-star metric, our north star, first-mover advantage, land grab. Example: "this builds a moat" → name the switching cost or data advantage Acceptable: "network effects" and "first-mover advantage" as precise terms in genuine market analysis.
Fake casual quotes. Casual words in scare quotes to perform relatability when nobody is being quoted. Shape: go "nope", what developers call "good enough". Acceptable: real quotation of a real person.
Patronizing analogy. An analogy the reader did not need, usually domestic or culinary. Phrases: think of it as, think of it like, it's like a. Acceptable: an analogy genuinely clearer than the plain statement for the audience.
Academic excess vocabulary. Paper-filler phrases that perform scholarship; soft tells, flag when clustered. Phrases: warrants further investigation, sheds new light, new avenues, garnered significant attention, a more nuanced understanding of, with the advent of, in recent years (opener), ever-evolving, noteworthy, revolutionize. Acceptable: standard hedged claims that carry real uncertainty.
Abstract metaphor nouns. Words that read as technical but have a plainer concrete word. Phrases: substrate, wedge, vector, locus, vantage, nexus, primitive (as noun), harness (as metaphor), surface (as in "API surface"), bedrock, scaffolding (as metaphor), modality, gold-plating, ratchet (as metaphor), evacuate (for moving code), endgame. Example: "substrate" → "base"; "wedge in" → "add"; "gold-plating" → "more than the job needs"; "evacuate" → "move out" Acceptable: the literal sense (a test harness, an attack vector in security writing).
Compressed noun compounds. Several nouns or participles packed into an improvised compound that needs the working session to decode. Shape: "workspace-local validation path", "review-shaped output", "read-path ownership boundary", plus -shaped, -path, -aware, -local coinages. Example: "read-path ownership boundary" → "which module owns reads from the cache" Acceptable: an established compound the audience already shares (thread-local, copy-on-write).
Em dash overuse. LLMs use em dashes (—) more than humans. Never use them. Use a period, comma, colon, semicolon, parentheses, because, but, so, or split the thought into two sentences.
Decorative punctuation. Punctuation as visual decoration instead of syntax. Phrases: middle dots as separators, arrows scattered as decoration. Acceptable: -> or → as deliberate shorthand that saves space where the connection is the point, and real notation (a keybinding path, a required separator).
Boldface overuse. Mechanically emphasizing phrases, uniform bold labels that repeat the sentence that follows, or bold labels inventing categories that are not real. Use bold sparingly. One or two key moments per section max. Acceptable: a definition list where the term truly leads, reference docs, changelogs, and scanning-heavy pages.
Inline-header vertical lists. Lists where items start with bolded headers followed by colons; the tell is a bold label that restates the line ("Performance: Performance improved..."). Default to short paragraphs instead. Keep paragraphs 1-2 sentences when possible, 3 max. Acceptable: a bold lead-in that ends in a period, names the item, and is followed by genuinely new detail ("Schema in TypeScript. Tables live in one file.").
Colon overuse. Colons as mid-sentence connectors rather than before a list or example. "If you're coming from traditional automation: instead of registering event handlers, you describe conditions" adds nothing with the colon. Rewrite to let the point stand on its own. Acceptable: a colon before a genuine list, example, or definition.
Title case in headings. Capitalizing all main words.
Emojis. Decorating headings or bullets with emojis.
Inflated numbers and titlebait. 10x your productivity, AI revolution, age of AI, future-proof, game-changer, cutting-edge.
False exclusivity. Claims of forbidden or overlooked knowledge about things that are plainly documented. Phrases: here's the part nobody's talking about, what nobody tells you, nobody talks about, what most people miss, what most people don't know, the dirty secret, the uncomfortable truth, the open secret, the elephant in the room, the hidden cost, the silent killer, doesn't get enough attention, anything with "nobody" or "most people don't realize". Acceptable: only when the thing is genuinely obscure and you can show that.
Mic-drop fragments. Short punchy declarations dropped for effect, alone or in clipped parallel pairs; rewriting slop into staccato punch endings is this same tell. Phrases: Full stop., Period., Let that sink in., Read that again., standalone closers like "It matters.", "This works.", clipped pairs like "Shippers scan. Practitioners read.", "[Noun]. That's it. That's the [thing]." Example: "The result is clean." as a standalone closer → fold it into the surrounding sentence Acceptable: one short sentence occasionally. Clustering is the failure.
Narrative pivots. Cinematic turning points pasted onto ordinary events. Phrases: something shifted, something clicked, everything changed, that changed everything, this changes everything, and then it hit me, that's when I realized, it was a turning point, a light bulb went off, the penny dropped, changed the game, flipped the script, shifted the paradigm.
Dramatic labels and colon reveals. A punchy label, a colon, then the actual sentence; the label adds drama, not information. Phrases: The catch:, The kicker:, The upshot:, The tradeoff:, The trick:, The downside:, The bottom line:, The takeaway:, The result:, The fix:, The payoff:, the answer is, the secret is, the trick is, the key is. Acceptable: a real definition list or glossary where "Term: definition" is the format.
False vulnerability. Polished, risk-free self-disclosure performing honesty; the admission costs the writer nothing and is phrased for effect. Shape: "This is not a rant, it's a diagnosis." Acceptable: a real, specific, uncomfortable admission.
Curly quotation marks. Using curly quotes ("...") instead of straight quotes ("...").
Collaborative communication artifacts. Assistant pleasantries inside a delivered artifact (a doc, a comment, a commit message) show that conversation bled into the product. Phrases: I'd be happy to help, I hope this helps, hope this was helpful, Of course!, Certainly!, Absolutely!, You're absolutely right!, you make an excellent point, I couldn't agree more, Would you like..., let me know, let me know if you have any questions, feel free to ask, feel free to reach out, don't hesitate to, happy to help, happy coding, best of luck, Great question, Excellent question, I'm glad you asked, I assure you, here is a... Acceptable: none inside an artifact. Legitimate only in actual live conversation.
Knowledge-cutoff disclaimers and model self-reference. The model naming itself or its limits inside an artifact. Phrases: as of [date], Up to my last training update, as an AI language model, as a large language model, as of my knowledge cutoff, based on my training data, I don't have access to real-time. Acceptable: none in an artifact.
Knowledge-gap speculation. Confident invention where information is missing, flagged by the disclaimer plus "likely"; the honest form states what is unknown and stops. Phrases: while specific details are limited, not widely documented, based on available information, the subject likely, maintains a low profile. Example: "While details are scarce, the mountain likely supports diverse fauna" → "Available sources do not document the mountain's fauna." Acceptable: an honest, sourced statement that a fact is unknown.
Sycophantic or servile tone. Overly positive, people-pleasing language, including the compliment sandwich: formula praise softening the actual point. Phrases: "step in the right direction, but", "solid recommendation, however", "great suggestion, that said", "Great work, but...". The contrast markers alone are fine; the tell is formula praise directly before them. Example: "Great work, but the parser needs a bounds check." → "The parser needs a bounds check." Acceptable: a specific positive observation that affects the revision and tells the author what to preserve.
Dead transitions and engagement bait. Essay-connector tissue and attention prompts; and, but, and so carry the same load without the starch. Phrases: Furthermore, Moreover, Moving forward, To put this in perspective, What makes this particularly interesting is, The implications here are, Additionally (sentence-start), consequently, subsequently, nevertheless, conversely, hence, thus, notably, importantly, significantly, crucially, essentially, fundamentally (sentence-start), what's more, that is to say, Are you paying attention?, You're not ready for this. Acceptable: "therefore" and "thus" in a genuine logical derivation; subsequently, conversely, moreover carry plain senses in formal, legal, and math prose, so flag when clustered rather than on a single hit.
Opening cliches. Stock openers that could preface anything; the reader learns nothing until the second sentence, so cut the first. Phrases: in today's fast-paced, in today's digital age, in today's rapidly evolving, in the realm of, in the world of, in an era where, in a world where, picture this, imagine a world where, have you ever wondered, embarking on a journey, gone are the days, whether you're a, chances are, you're not alone, look no further, without further ado, we live in a world, before we dive in.
Signposted conclusions and wrap-up headings. Announcing the ending instead of ending; a short document rarely needs both a conclusion heading and a recap. Phrases: in conclusion, in summary, to summarize, to sum up, to conclude, in closing, all in all, when all is said and done, in the final analysis, ultimately (as opener), plus headings: Final thoughts, Closing thoughts, Wrapping up, Putting it all together, The big picture, The takeaway, Final word. Acceptable: abstracts and executive summaries a long document genuinely needs, genre conventions in academic papers, legal submissions, and reports, and a conclusion that synthesizes rather than repeats.
Sequencing scaffolds. Numbered-essay skeletons, or a listicle wearing prose. Phrases: firstly, secondly, thirdly, lastly, the first takeaway, the second lesson, the first thing to note, the third reason, the first step is (essay scaffold). Acceptable: first and second as plain ordinals in a real sequence, or an actual numbered list.
Content announcements. Narrating what the text is about to do instead of doing it. Phrases: below you'll find, here's a breakdown of, here's an overview of, here's everything you need to know, the following sections will, this guide will walk you through, plus headings: What you'll learn, What we'll cover, What to expect.
Formula headings. Heading templates from content marketing. Phrases: Deep dive, Under the hood, Demystifying, Why it matters, Why this matters, A closer look, The ultimate guide, Everything you need to know, Mastering, Unlocking, The power of, The magic of, The future of, The art of, Revolutionizing. Acceptable: a heading that names the actual content, and "mastering" literally in audio production.
Cataphoric forecasting. A sentence-initial count forecasting a list, with framework nouns as the tell; the content should present itself, not trail a promise. Phrases: three pillars, four core principles, here are the four, there are three reasons, falls into four categories, with nouns: pillars, principles, tenets, cornerstones, levers, phases, buckets. Example: "Here are the four benefits:" → present the benefits Acceptable: a literal count of physical things ("all three files"), and counts that establish completeness or navigation ("there are three failure cases").
Metacommentary and structure narration. The text talks about itself: what it will explain, what the key point is, what to take away. Phrases: at its core, at its heart, the key here is, let me explain, let's unpack, let's break this down, let's dive into, let's explore, let's take a closer look, this is where X comes in, this matters because, key takeaway, the takeaway is, quick recap, to recap, quick overview, plus bold callouts: Key insight:, Key takeaway:, Bottom line:. Acceptable: an admonition block (Note:) where the doc system uses that convention.
Restatement markers and bloat. Saying it twice and labeling the second pass; usually the first phrasing should just be fixed. Also one thesis restated at every level: intro promises, sections repeat, conclusion recaps. Say it once, well. Phrases: in other words, simply put, put simply, to put it another way, said differently, in plain English, in simpler terms, what I mean is. Acceptable: a restatement that adds real precision, or one genuine summary in a long document.
Rhetorical test prompts. Coaching-register imperatives that quiz the reader. Phrases: ask yourself, the litmus test, the acid test, the question to ask is, think about it. Acceptable: a genuine named test with a stated procedure, and "acid-test ratio" as the finance term.
Prose structure formula. The five-paragraph-essay ghost: topic sentence, three supporting points, conclusion, every paragraph the same length, consecutive paragraphs opening with the same word. Vary structure with content.
Agent handoff over-structuring. A tiny change wrapped in fixed status-report sections; ask whether one or two sentences would convey all useful information. Shape: "What changed:", "Tests:", "Notes:", "Next steps:", "Summary:" stacked over a small diff. Example: a four-section report on a one-line fix → "This commit fixes the off-by-one in the loop bound." Acceptable: substantial engineering work where each section carries real content.
Generic benefit tails. A generic benefit sentence appended after an implementation choice, naming no concrete gain. Phrases: this keeps the change focused, this avoids unnecessary complexity, this ensures predictable behavior, this makes the code more maintainable, this improves readability. Example: "This keeps the change focused." → delete it, or name the failure it prevents Acceptable: a tail that names a concrete prevented failure, a measured improvement, or a maintained invariant.
Defensive exhaustiveness. A direct answer buried under a matrix of unlikely exceptions and "depending on" branches the reader did not ask about; the caveats protect the writer, not the reader. Shape: stacked "if" branches, "in some cases", "there are exceptions" after a direct answer. Example: a one-line answer followed by five "unless" clauses → the answer plus the one caveat that could change the decision Acceptable: caveats that could change the reader's decision. Move remote possibilities to an optional note.
Conversation residue in code and PRs. Traces of the working session litter the patch: comments arguing with a rejected approach, changes described relative to the conversation, plan labels and stage numbers. Does the text read correctly to someone who never saw the session? Phrases: now also handles, as discussed, per the plan, per review feedback, Phase 1:, Stage 2:, Step 3: (as PR or comment labels). Example: "// Now also handles empty arrays (per review)" → "// Empty arrays return zero." Acceptable: genuine numbered procedures where order is the content, and changelog or release-note prose that says what a component now does.
Reasoning-chain artifacts. The model's scratch thinking left in the output. Phrases: let me think step by step, breaking this down, to approach this systematically, here's my thought process, working through this logically.
Vague self-reference. Pointing backward without a target; in long documents the reference decays as sections move. Phrases: as mentioned above, as mentioned earlier, as noted above, as discussed earlier, as we saw, as we'll see, as previously mentioned, as I mentioned, as I said. Acceptable: a real cross-reference to a named section ("see the install section"), "recall that" in proofs, and normal navigation in a long doc. Flag only when a reader who never saw the drafting session cannot resolve the reference.
Instruction compliance narration. The output narrates its own compliance with a formatting, brevity, tone, or forbidden-action instruction. Phrases: per your request I kept this concise, I avoided em dashes as instructed, as requested I, following your instructions. Example: "Per your request, I kept this concise." → delete the line Acceptable: confirming a consequential action the user needs to know about.
Unfilled placeholders. Template slots surviving into finished output. Phrases: [Your Name], [link to article], [Describe the, insert X here, 2025-XX-XX. Acceptable: a real template file meant to be filled later.
Filler phrases and throat-clearing. Preambles and bulk that add syllables, not facts, including vague quantity words where a count or a name would fit. Phrases: it is important to note that, it's worth noting, it should be noted that, it goes without saying, needless to say, that being said, with that said, generally speaking, one thing is clear, begs the question, raises important questions, a wide range of, a variety of, a myriad of, a plethora of, a wealth of, countless, numerous, for the purpose of, the fact that, has the potential to, is capable of, when it comes to, in terms of, in today's [anything]. Example: "in order to achieve" → "to achieve"; "due to the fact that" → "because"; "at this point in time" → "now"; "in the event that" → "if"; "has the ability to" → "can"; "it is important to note that" → delete; "various approaches" → "three approaches" Acceptable: "given" and "particular" in their precise senses; "in order to" shows up in clean procedural writing too, so treat a hit as a rewrite prompt rather than a strike.
Excessive hedging. Over-qualifying without adding honest uncertainty. Example: "could potentially possibly be argued" → "may"
Defensive hedges. Pre-defending a point against an objection nobody raised; the concession is rhetorical wind-up, not information. Phrases: this may seem, it might sound obvious but, admittedly, to be fair, on the surface, at first glance. Example: "This might sound obvious, but test your code." → "Test your code." Acceptable: a real concession that changes the claim, and "on the surface" for a literal surface in graphics, physics, or materials writing.
Generic positive conclusions and bare reassurance. Vague upbeat endings, and closing lines that tell the reader everything is fine without the condition or evidence that would make it true. Phrases: that's expected, this is intentional, this is safe, no action is needed, nothing to worry about, works as intended. Example: "This is safe." → "This is safe because the input is escaped before it reaches the query." Acceptable: reassurance that states the condition, guarantee, or evidence behind it.
Say what it does, not how it feels. "The database stays close at hand", "SQL you can read", "types that follow your schema" name a feeling. The fix names the mechanism or a number: ".toSQL() returns the exact string sent to the database", "a column rename fails the build". Ask what the sentence tells the reader to do or know, then write that. If you can't restate it as a concrete instruction, fact, or number, cut it. One more check: if the sentence could appear unchanged in another project's docs, it says nothing about this one. Cut it.
Shorten or split dense sentences. If the reader has to backtrack to parse a sentence, break it in two or drop clauses. One idea per sentence.
Active voice. Prefer it. Catch "is/are/was/were + past participle" and name the actor: "queries are validated" → "the compiler validates queries". Acceptable: the actor is unknown or genuinely doesn't matter.
Cut adverbs, or use a stronger verb. "Runs quickly" → "is fast" or the number. "Significantly improves" → the measured delta. An adverb propping up a weak verb means the verb is wrong.
Before:
The new software update serves as a testament to the company's commitment to innovation. Moreover, it provides a seamless, intuitive, and powerful user experience—ensuring that users can accomplish their goals efficiently. It's not just an update, it's a revolution in how we think about productivity. Industry experts believe this will have a lasting impact on the entire sector, highlighting the company's pivotal role in the evolving technological landscape.
After:
The software update adds batch processing, keyboard shortcuts, and offline mode. Early feedback from beta testers has been positive, with most reporting faster task completion.