humanizer

This skill drafts or revises expository prose whose value depends on the reader understanding and trusting it. Its doctrine is docs/graph/method/prose-posture.md: meaning governs style, the information contract is preserved, structure carries emphasis, genre outranks generic advice, voice is a constraint, and editing stops when the prose does its job. This node holds the procedure that applies the doctrine and the tool that floors it.

Two halves do the work. The skill is the judgment: what the document must cause the reader to understand or do, which claims must survive, which diagnostics apply, what the voice is. The tool docs/graph/prose-lint.py (seed home tools/prose-lint.py) is the floor under that judgment: it reports the tells a pattern can catch, and with --against <rev> it proves that a rewrite added and dropped nothing.

When to apply this skill

• A document, README, runbook, or node body is being written or refreshed for people, and the draft came out of a model or from notes.
• An ADR or spec body is about to flip to accepted or active (docs/graph/skills/adr-writer.md, docs/graph/skills/spec-author.md). The record is prose someone reads in a year.
• The deliver protocol's full-form summary, a pull-request description, or a commit message is being prepared. Other people read these most and edit them least.
• A reviewer or the owner says the text "sounds like an AI".
• Text imported from outside the project (a harvest import, a vendored guide) will be read as the project's own voice.

Out of scope: code, commands, frontmatter, owns: and load_when: lists, generated tables, the kernel, and the seed's own machinery prompts. The machinery is edited by grill and holistic-editing, never by a prose pass. Fiction is out of scope; invented detail is its task.

The document contract

Before drafting or revising substantial prose, settle a compact contract. For a short edit, infer it in a moment and proceed; for long, high-stakes, or multi-source work, let it govern every section. It is internal unless the owner asks for the reasoning or an audit.

• Purpose: what must this document cause the reader to understand, decide, approve, do, or remember?
• Audience: what does the reader know, what terminology can they handle, what do they care about, what is their likely next action?
• Genre: which profile in prose-posture.genre-outranks applies?
• Substance: which claims, evidence, instructions, and caveats must survive?
• Priority: which one to three ideas matter most?
• Authority: which statements are facts, attributed claims, inferences, assumptions, recommendations, unknowns, or contested (prose-posture.claim-classes)?
• Voice: the owner's sample if one exists; otherwise the restrained default for the genre, in the plant's declared deliverable_language.
• Constraints: length, format, required sections, terminology, headings other documents anchor to.
• End state: what should a competent reader be able to say or do after reading?

Progressive execution

Use the lightest process that reliably fits the task.

Level 1, local edit (a paragraph, a commit message, a summary): infer purpose and voice; preserve the claims; revise the weak sentences or paragraph; run the fidelity and naturalness checks; return the prose.

Level 2, document revision (a README, a runbook, a node body, a multi-section document): settle the contract; map sections and claims; find the structural defects; revise section by section; harmonize voice and terminology; audit repetition across sections; verify facts, citations, and conditions; return the document.

Level 3, high-stakes synthesis (a long technical or legal-adjacent document, a multi-source report, an owner brief that will drive a decision): settle the contract; keep a claim and source ledger; classify authority and uncertainty; design the information architecture; draft or rewrite bounded sections; verify each against its sources; test coherence across the document; audit citations and quantities; review genre and voice; run the adversarial pass; finalize. Level 3 ceremony is never spent on a short paragraph.

Rewriting existing prose: the passes

1. Understand before editing. Read the whole relevant section. Name what the passage is trying to do, which claims are indispensable, where the logic changes, whether paragraph boundaries match it, which terms must stay stable, and what voice the source has. Run python3 docs/graph/prose-lint.py --file <path> and add its findings to your own; it sees density (dash rate, bold-label runs, intensifier clusters) better than a reader does, and it misses voice entirely. Do not start with a word-replacement pass.
2. Rebuild weak structure. For each weak paragraph: state its job in a few words, list its indispensable claims, choose a natural order, delete staging and duplicated emphasis, write the paragraph again. Reuse source sentences that already work. A paragraph that is clear, exact, and genre-appropriate stays unchanged.
3. Edit sentences. Inspect actor, verb, referent, qualifier, clause order, modifier placement, terminology, punctuation, length, and repetition, against the diagnostics in prose-posture.diagnostics and the decision rules in prose-posture.decision-rules.
4. Check the document's rhythm. Look across paragraphs for the repeats invisible sentence by sentence: the same opener, closer, list length, paragraph size, transition, or contrast structure. Change repetition only where it is accidental or templated.
5. Audit fidelity. Compare the rewrite with the source: every number, date, proper noun, technical term, quoted phrase, citation, condition, exception, modal verb, causal statement, comparative, ranking, and scope phrase. Then run python3 docs/graph/prose-lint.py --file <path> --against HEAD (or the revision the edit started from). An unsupported addition or a material omission is an error; the rewrite is wrong until it is restored. Finally search for the tells that most often survive a rewrite: an empty contrast, a one-line closer, a dash, a triad, a bold label.

Drafting from notes

Do not turn each bullet into one sentence. Settle the contract; classify each note as claim, evidence, context, caveat, recommendation, instruction, example, or open question; detect duplicates and contradictions; choose the information order; decide which notes deserve paragraphs, lists, tables, or omission; draft paragraphs around reader questions; add connective reasoning only where the relationship is supported; keep uncertainty and unresolved points visible ("The notes do not establish whether..."); revise for voice and genre; verify every concrete statement against the notes.

What the fact-preservation check proves

A rewrite is a claim that nothing changed except the words. The tool makes the claim testable: for each file, the working copy and git show <rev>:<path> must agree on the sorted multiset of numbers, heading texts, inline code spans, fenced blocks, link targets, and requirement levels (must, must not, shall, should, may, never, required, prohibited). These classes are where facts hide in prose: a count, a version, a name in backticks, a command, a destination, an obligation. A drift is reported as what was added and what was dropped, and it blocks. The check does not prove the prose is good; it proves the rewrite is honest. Both halves are required before the text is handed off.

Counts stated in the seed's own documentation are also cross-checked against manifest.json by tests/seed-lint.py; a rewrite that drops "13 skills" from a sentence fails there as well.

Verification, proportional to consequence

• Fidelity: no unsupported addition; no dropped material claim; no changed number, date, unit, name, or term; no altered citation scope; no stronger causal language; no lost condition or exception; no changed requirement level.
• Logic: each conclusion follows from what precedes it; transitions name real relationships; comparisons share a basis; pronouns have clear referents; alternatives are real; recommendations separate evidence from judgment.
• Structure: each section has a function; order follows reader need; headings are useful; repetition is intentional; lists exist because scanning helps; important ideas get proportionate space.
• Voice: register matches audience and genre; a supplied sample is recognizable without caricature; no random personality was introduced; terminology is stable.
• Naturalness: read as a reader, not as a pattern detector. Fix only defects that matter. For prose read linearly, simulate a read-aloud pass for breathless clause stacks and punctuation that hides the relation between clauses.

The adversarial pass (Level 2 and 3). Ask: which sentence sounds more certain than the evidence; which paragraph exists because a template expected it; which abstract noun hides an actor; which sentence repeats the one before; which contrast argues with nobody; which transition would vanish under a better order; which list was forced into a pattern; which heading promises more than its section delivers; which recommendation hides a tradeoff; which citation now supports more than it did; which qualification was lost; which line was written to impress; and which line is being edited only because it "sounds AI" rather than because it is weak. The last question prevents overcorrection: revert those edits.

Output modes

• File mode (the default in this system). The text lives in a file under version control. Run the passes and write only the finished text back. Change prose only; keep code, metadata, commands, paths, identifiers, link targets, citations, table data, and anchored heading text unchanged. Keep process commentary outside the file; report in one short paragraph what changed.
• Embedded mode. Another protocol or skill uses this one as its prose layer (a pull-request description, a commit message, the delivery summary). Return only the finished prose in the structure the caller requires. No chat wrapper.
• Drafting mode. From notes, sources, or an outline, return the finished prose in the requested format without narrating the drafting.
• Rewrite mode. For pasted prose, return the complete revised text; keep change notes brief and separate.
• Audit mode. When asked to review rather than rewrite, report the highest-impact issues in order of effect on fidelity, logic, structure, audience fit, naturalness, and surface style. Do not list every weak phrase.

Where this skill runs in the system

• deliver: the full-form summary and any pull-request description or commit message pass through embedded mode before hand-off; the summary's quality bar names it.
• canonize: the docs-librarian applies file mode to node bodies, runbooks, and README prose it writes or refreshes, and runs the tool with --against before the graph-lint pass.
• adr-writer and spec-author: the body of a record is prose a person reads; file mode applies before the status flips.
• harvest: imported prose that will read as the seed's own voice passes file mode; the tool runs beside agnosticism-lint.py on the changed files. The seed's machinery prompts themselves are not humanized; they change only through grill.

Reference

• docs/graph/prose-lint.py (seed home tools/prose-lint.py): findings as path:line: §N|letter strong|weak, the dash rate per 1,000 words, --strict, --sample <file>, --against <rev>, --changelog-ok; exit 0 clean, 1 findings, 2 usage or no file matched. Vocabulary detectors are weak by doctrine; a weak cluster (three weak tells in one paragraph) fails; strong tells fail on one sighting.
• docs/graph/method/prose-posture.md: the doctrine, the genre profiles, the diagnostics A to X, the anti-patterns, the decision rules, the stop conditions.
• docs/graph/skills/holistic-editing.md: a prose rewrite is an integration into the whole document, never a patch of flagged phrases.

Source and license

Adapted from two MIT-licensed skills: the humanizer skill by Siqi Chen (2025; patterns from Wikipedia's "Signs of AI writing") and the human-prose doctrine (4.0.0, derived from it). Upstream notices are kept at skills/humanizer/LICENSE.upstream. The adaptation adds the mechanical fact-preservation check, the plant language facts, the scope and exemptions of this system, the split between doctrine (method.prose-posture) and procedure (this node), and the wiring into deliver, canonize, and the writing skills.