Audit and Rewrite AI-Generated Text

Avoid AI Writing is a skill for finding and improving prose patterns that can make writing sound machine-generated. It covers 21 categories, including formatting habits, sentence structures, word choices, template and transition phrases, inflated significance, filler, generic conclusions, chatbot artifacts, and promotional language. The entry describes the pattern categories and gives examples of plainer alternatives, such as replacing leverage with use. It also includes a prompt and sample response showing how an audit can list issues, provide a rewrite, explain the edits, and perform a second pass.

Treat these patterns as editorial signals, not proof of AI authorship. A flagged expression can be appropriate in context, and a suggested replacement is a guide rather than an automatic substitution.

Use it when someone asks to remove AI-isms, clean up AI writing, make text sound less like AI, or review a draft before publication. It can also be used to inspect documentation, blog posts, marketing copy, or internal communications. When the request is audit-only, report the findings without rewriting. Choose an audit, a rewrite, or both to match the requested scope.

Do not treat a pattern match as evidence about who or what authored the text. Do not replace a precise technical term merely because it appears on a word list. The source specifically calls for preserving factual claims, uncertainty, attributed quotations, code, identifiers, and the requested scope. The skill does not detect AI-generated code; its checks concern prose.

The input is prose to audit, together with the user's requested scope. For an audit and rewrite, the example output has four parts: issues found, a rewritten version, a summary of what changed, and a second-pass audit of the rewrite. The issues section quotes the patterns it identifies. The rewrite uses plainer wording while retaining the text's facts and intent. The change summary explains the edits, and the second pass looks for patterns that remain. For audit-only work, the skill reports findings without producing a rewrite.

The source illustrates this with a short passage containing phrases such as 'rapidly evolving AI landscape,' 'pivotal journey,' and 'leverage cutting-edge tools.' Its example rewrite uses direct wording about developers using newer AI tools to simplify work. This is an illustration of the skill's output format, not a universal replacement set.

This is an editorial skill with no software integrations or external service requirements. Apply it to text in the context where the user requests a review. It cannot verify factual claims or find real citations to replace vague attributions, so fact-checking and citation research require separate work when requested.

This skill is for writers and editors reviewing prose for recognizable AI-writing patterns. It is relevant to people preparing documentation, blog posts, marketing copy, internal communications, or other text they want to sound more natural. It is also useful when an editor needs to distinguish a stylistic suggestion from a factual correction: the skill can flag a phrase, but the human still has to judge whether that phrase fits its context. The source positions it as a guideline-based editorial aid, not an authorship detector or a substitute for checking facts.