Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 开发

content-humanizer(内容人性化)

用于辅助文档、README、Markdown、说明文和内容稿件的整理与改写。它适合让 Agent 提炼结构、补齐章节、统一术语、检查链接或把零散材料整理成可读文档。使用时应保留项目已有事实、命令和路径,不要把未确认的信息写成确定结论;涉及对外文案时,还需要控制语气,避免过度营销或夸大能力。

content-humanizer 是开发类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为只读;许可证信息还不明确,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在开发类的 21,746 个 Skill 里排第 12,170。

总安装 1,409周安装 57GitHub Stars 103下载 442核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
unknown

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:content-humanizer(内容人性化)
来源仓库:https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills
仓库路径:skills/content-humanizer
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills --skill content-humanizer
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills --skill content-humanizer

这个 Skill 是做什么的

开发类 Skill 面向写代码、改代码和排查问题,一般会读写仓库文件,部分还会执行构建或测试命令。

content-humanizer 将机器风格文本转化为具有真实观点与经验的人性化表达。适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中修复 AI 模式化语言、增强写作节奏与具体性。提供 AI 模式检测目录与语气注入框架,改善可读性与可信度。

安装命令:npx skills add https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills --skill content-humanizer。使用前需确认权限范围、维护状态及是否会触发文本处理或输出修改操作。

来源仓库内路径:skills/content-humanizer

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 npx skills add https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills --skill content-humanize…;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它标注为只读,先用只读任务试一次,确认行为符合预期再扩大使用范围。

常见问题

6 条

content-humanizer 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills --skill content-humanizer。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

content-humanizer 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

content-humanizer 需要什么权限?

权限级别是只读。该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

content-humanizer 是免费的吗?

公开资料没有标注明确许可证,收费和商用限制都无法确认。正式使用前请到来源仓库核对授权说明。

content-humanizer 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 1,409 次,近一周安装 57 次,下载 442 次,GitHub 103 星。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

content-humanizer 安全吗?

第三方扫描结果为通过,但这只覆盖已知的静态检查项,不能替代自己读一遍源码和安装命令。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。
  • 第三方扫描已通过,常见的高风险行为没有命中。
  • 标注为只读权限,试用阶段不容易误改本地文件。

先想清楚的地方

  • 许可证没有明确标注,能不能商用、能不能再分发都不确定。
  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 Codex,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理开发类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。
  • 只想先试试效果、不希望它改动本地文件的人。

不太适合

  • 需要明确授权才能用到公司项目里的场景。
  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

开发类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
skill-vetter

技能审查员 · OpenClaw

8,779,018986操作浏览器MIT-0通过
ontology

本体论 · OpenClaw

6,636,960576只读MIT-0通过
entra-app-registration

内部应用程序注册 · Codex、Claude

6,631,872764接触敏感数据未明确通过
entra-app-registration

内部应用程序注册 · Codex、Claude

3,757,680201接触敏感数据未明确通过
nano-banana-pro

纳米香蕉专业版 · OpenClaw

3,526,898364接触敏感数据MIT-0有提醒
content-humanizer

内容人性化 · 本页

1,409103只读未明确通过

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

Content Humanizer

Transform machine-sounding content into writing that reads like it came from a real person with real opinions and real experience.


Table of Contents


Keywords

content humanizer, AI content, humanize writing, AI detection, natural writing, authentic content, AI cliches, robotic writing, brand voice, personality injection, writing rhythm, AI patterns, content authenticity, human voice, AI tells, content polishing, voice consistency, writing style, content quality


Quick Start

Detect AI Patterns in Content

  1. Scan for overused filler words (delve, landscape, crucial, leverage, robust)
  2. Check for hedging chains ("It's important to note that...")
  3. Count em-dash frequency (more than 2 per 500 words = AI fingerprint)
  4. Evaluate paragraph structure uniformity (identical patterns = AI)
  5. Flag all unattributed vague claims ("Many companies," "Studies show")
  6. Score severity: High (10+ tells per 500 words = full rewrite needed)

Humanize a Draft

  1. Replace all filler words with plain-language alternatives
  2. Vary sentence length deliberately (short, long, medium, fragment)
  3. Replace every vague claim with a specific data point or honest qualification
  4. Break uniform paragraph structure with fragments, questions, and asides
  5. Add friction and imperfection (qualifications, direction changes, opinions)
  6. Inject brand voice if voice guidelines exist

Core Workflows

Workflow 1: AI Pattern Audit (Diagnostic Only)

Scan content without editing. Produce an annotated report.

Step 1: Run Detection Scan

Flag every instance in these categories with severity ratings:

  • Critical (kills credibility): Overused filler words, hedging chains, identical paragraph structure, lack of specificity
  • Medium (softens impact): Em-dash overuse, false certainty, generic conclusions
  • Minor (polish only): Slightly repetitive transitions, mild formatting uniformity

Step 2: Count and Score

MetricThreshold
AI tells per 500 words< 3 = minor edits needed, 3-7 = significant editing, 8+ = full rewrite
Unique paragraph structures< 3 patterns in 1,000+ words = AI fingerprint
Vague claims without attributionAny = flag each one
Sentences starting with "It is"> 3 per 1,000 words = flag

Step 3: Deliver Audit Report

## AI Pattern Audit
Content: [Title or description]
Word count: [X]
AI Tell Count: [X] (Critical: [X], Medium: [X], Minor: [X])
Recommendation: [Minor edits / Significant editing / Full rewrite]

### Critical Issues
[Each issue with line reference, pattern category, and specific fix]

### Medium Issues
[Same format]

### Minor Issues
[Same format]

Workflow 2: Full Humanization Pass

Transform the content from AI-sounding to authentically human.

Step 1: Remove AI Filler Words

Never just delete — always replace with something better or restructure the sentence:

AI PhraseReplacement Options
"delve into""look at," "dig into," "break down," or restructure without the phrase
"the [X] landscape""how [X] works today," "the current state of [X]"
"leverage""use," "apply," "put to work"
"crucial" / "vital" / "pivotal"State the thing and let it be self-evidently important
"furthermore" / "moreover"Start the next sentence directly, or use "and" or "also"
"robust" / "comprehensive"Replace with specific description of what it actually covers
"facilitate" / "foster""help," "make easier," "allow," "create"
"navigate this challenge""handle this," "deal with this," "get through this"
"in order to""to"
"it is important to note that"Delete the phrase; start with the actual note
"it goes without saying"If it goes without saying, do not say it
"at the end of the day"Delete entirely or replace with specific conclusion
"a wide range of"Specify the range or say "many"

Step 2: Fix Sentence Rhythm

AI produces uniform sentence length (18-22 words per sentence). The ear goes numb.

Deliberately vary:

  • Break long sentences into two
  • Add a short sentence after a long one. Like this.
  • Use fragments for emphasis. Especially for emphasis.
  • Let some sentences run when the thought needs room to unwind
  • Mix declarative, interrogative, and imperative forms

Target rhythm patterns:

  • Long. Short. Long, long. Short.
  • Question? Answer. Proof.
  • Claim. Specific example. So what?

Step 3: Replace Generic with Specific

Every vague claim is an invitation to doubt:

Before: "Many companies have seen significant improvements by implementing this strategy."

After (if you have data): "HubSpot published their onboarding funnel data in 2023 — companies that hit first-value in 7 days showed 40% higher 90-day retention."

After (if you do not have data): "I don't have a controlled study to cite, but in every SaaS onboarding flow I've worked on, the pattern is the same: earlier activation = higher retention."

Honest qualification beats vague authority.

Step 4: Vary Paragraph Structure

Break the uniform pattern (Statement > Explanation > Example > Bridge):

  • Single-sentence paragraph for emphasis
  • Question paragraph: pose a question, then answer it
  • List in the middle when items are genuinely parallel
  • Aside or parenthetical that reveals personality
  • Confession: "I got this wrong the first time"
  • Fragment paragraph. Just one thought. Then move on.

Step 5: Add Friction and Imperfection

Real people:

  • Change direction mid-thought: "Actually, let me back up..."
  • Qualify things they are uncertain about
  • Have opinions that might be wrong: "I might be wrong about this, but..."
  • Notice things: "What's interesting here is..."
  • React: "Which, if you've ever tried to debug this, you know is maddening."
  • Acknowledge tradeoffs: "This works, but it costs you..."

Workflow 3: Voice Injection

After removing AI patterns, inject the brand's specific personality.

Step 1: Extract Voice from Examples

If brand guidelines exist, reference them. If not, request one example of writing the brand loves. Extract:

  • Sentence length preference (short punchy vs. flowing)
  • Formality level (contractions, slang, jargon policy)
  • Humor usage (dry wit, self-deprecating, none)
  • Relationship stance (peer-to-peer, expert-to-student, provocateur)
  • Signature phrases or patterns

Step 2: Apply Voice Techniques

TechniqueHow to Apply
Personal anecdotes"We saw this firsthand when building X"
Direct addressTalk to the reader as "you," not "users" or "teams"
Opinions without apology"We think the industry is wrong about this"
The asideBrief parenthetical showing you know more than you are saying
Rhythm signatureMatch the sentence pattern from the brand's best examples
Controlled imperfectionStrategic fragments, direction changes, honest qualifications

Step 3: Consistency Check

After voice injection, verify:

  • Voice is consistent from intro to conclusion (no drift)
  • Tone matches the content type (blog post vs. docs vs. email)
  • Personality does not override clarity (if a joke obscures the point, cut the joke)
  • The piece sounds like the same person wrote all of it

AI Pattern Detection Catalog

Category 1: Overused Filler Words (Critical)

These words appear disproportionately in AI-generated text:

Tier 1 — Instant Tells: delve, landscape (metaphorical), crucial, vital, pivotal, leverage, robust, comprehensive, holistic, foster, facilitate, ensure, navigate (metaphorical), utilize, furthermore, moreover, in addition

Tier 2 — Suspicious in Clusters: streamline, optimize, innovative, cutting-edge, game-changer, paradigm, synergy, ecosystem, empower, unlock, harness, transformative, seamless

Category 2: Hedging Chains (Critical)

AI hedges constantly because it does not want to be wrong:

  • "It's important to note that..."
  • "It's worth mentioning that..."
  • "One might argue that..."
  • "In many cases," "In most scenarios,"
  • "It goes without saying..."
  • "Needless to say..."

Category 3: Structural Uniformity (Critical)

Every paragraph follows the same SEEB pattern: Statement > Explanation > Example > Bridge

Real writing varies. Some paragraphs are one sentence. Some are lists. Some are questions followed by answers. Some digress and come back.

Category 4: Specificity Vacuum (Critical)

AI replaces specific claims with vague ones to avoid being wrong:

  • "Many companies" (which ones?)
  • "Studies show" (which studies?)
  • "Significantly improved" (by how much?)
  • "Leading brands" (name one)
  • "A growing number of" (how many?)
  • "Best practices suggest" (whose best practices?)

Category 5: Em-Dash Overuse (Medium)

One or two em-dashes per piece: fine. Em-dash in every other paragraph: AI fingerprint.

Category 6: False Certainty (Medium)

AI asserts confidently about things nobody can be certain about. "Companies that do X are more successful." According to what data? Based on what sample size?

Category 7: Generic Conclusions (Medium)

AI conclusions restate the introduction: "In this article, we explored X, Y, and Z. By implementing these strategies, you can achieve..."

No human concludes like this. Real conclusions add something new or nail the exit line.


Rhythm and Cadence Repair

The Problem

AI writing has metronomic consistency. Every sentence is roughly the same length. The reader's attention flatlines.

The Fix

Map sentence lengths and deliberately vary them:

Before (AI rhythm):

Content marketing is an essential strategy for modern businesses. It helps build trust with potential customers over time. Creating high-quality content requires careful planning and execution. The most effective content strategies combine data-driven insights with creative storytelling.

Every sentence: 8-10 words. Same structure. Same length.

After (human rhythm):

Content marketing works. Not because it is clever — because it builds trust before you ever ask for a sale. That takes time. It takes planning. And honestly? It takes more failed drafts than anyone likes to admit. But the companies that figure it out — the ones that combine real data with stories that actually land — they win. Not quickly. But permanently.

Mixed length. Fragments. Questions. Repetition for emphasis. Direction changes.

Rhythm Patterns to Use

PatternWhen to Use
Long. Short.After complex explanation, punch with a short statement
Question? Answer.Engage the reader, then satisfy the curiosity
Claim. Evidence. So what?Make a point, prove it, explain why it matters
List. Then prose.Present options or items, then return to narrative
Confession. Lesson.Admit a mistake, extract the learning

Specificity Replacement Guide

The Rule

Every vague claim must become either specific or honestly qualified. There is no third option.

Replacement Patterns

VagueSpecific AlternativeHonest Qualification
"Many companies""In a 2024 Gartner survey of 1,200 enterprises""In the teams I've worked with"
"Studies show""A Stanford study published in Nature (2023)""I haven't seen controlled studies, but the pattern is..."
"Significant improvement""A 34% reduction in churn over 6 months""Noticeable improvement — I'd estimate 20-30% range"
"Industry leaders""Stripe, Notion, and Linear""The companies I'd point to as examples"
"Best practices""[Organization]'s published framework recommends""What I've seen work consistently"
"Growing trend""Adoption grew from 12% to 47% between 2022 and 2025""Anecdotally, I'm seeing more teams try this"

Before and After Examples

Example 1: SaaS Product Description

Before (AI-generated):

It is crucial to leverage your existing customer data in order to effectively navigate the competitive landscape. Furthermore, by implementing a robust onboarding strategy, organizations can ensure that users achieve maximum value from the product and reduce churn significantly.

After (humanized):

Here's the thing nobody says out loud: most SaaS companies have the data to fix their churn problem. They just do not look at it until after customers leave. Your activation funnel tells you everything. Your best cohorts, your worst, the exact moment the drop-off happens. You do not need another tool — you need someone to stop ignoring what the tool is already showing you. Nail onboarding first. Everything else is downstream.

Example 2: Marketing Blog Post

Before (AI-generated):

In the rapidly evolving landscape of digital marketing, it is essential for businesses to leverage cutting-edge strategies to stay ahead of the competition. By implementing a comprehensive content marketing approach, organizations can foster meaningful connections with their target audience and drive sustainable growth.

After (humanized):

Digital marketing changes fast. That part is true. But the companies that actually grow? They are not chasing every new tactic. They are doing the boring stuff well. Write content people want to read. Answer questions your customers actually ask. Do it consistently for 12 months. It is not exciting advice. But it works — and the "cutting-edge strategies" usually do not.

Best Practices

  1. Audit before editing — Know what is wrong before you fix it. A piece with 3 AI tells needs polish. A piece with 15 needs a rewrite. The approach is different.
  2. Preserve what works — Some AI-generated paragraphs are genuinely good. Flag them before rewriting so you do not accidentally destroy the best parts.
  3. Do not over-humanize — Adding too much personality to technical documentation makes it harder to use. Match the humanity level to the content type.
  4. Get voice context first — Guessing the brand voice and being wrong wastes time. Ask for one example of writing they love before injecting personality.
  5. Read aloud — The single most effective test. If it sounds like a press release when read aloud, it is not human enough.
  6. Replace, do not just delete — Removing "furthermore" leaves a gap. Replace with a better transition or restructure the flow.
  7. Specific beats clever — A specific data point does more for credibility than a witty phrase. Prioritize substance over style.
  8. Consistency over personality — A mildly interesting but consistent voice beats a wildly creative voice that shifts every paragraph.
  9. One pass at a time — Detect first, humanize second, inject voice third. Trying to do all three simultaneously produces inconsistent results.
  10. Flag the specificity gap — You can make prose flow better, but you cannot invent proof points. If the piece makes five vague claims with zero data, the author needs to provide the specifics. Flag this clearly.

Integration Points

  • Content Production — Use to create the initial draft. Run Content Humanizer after drafting, before SEO optimization.
  • Copywriting — Use for conversion copy (landing pages, CTAs, headlines). Content Humanizer works on longer-form pieces.
  • Content Strategy — Use when deciding what content to create. Not for voice or draft execution.
  • AI SEO — Use after humanizing to optimize for AI search citation. Human-sounding content gets cited more, but still needs structure for extraction.
  • Brand Guidelines — Reference brand voice and personality standards before voice injection.
  • Copy Editing — Use after humanization for grammar, fact-checking, and editorial consistency passes.

Troubleshooting

ProblemLikely CauseFix
Content still sounds AI-generated after humanization passOnly surface-level word replacements done — structural uniformity and hedging patterns remainRun all three passes in order: filler removal, rhythm repair, specificity replacement. Address structure, not just words
Brand voice inconsistent after editingVoice injection done without reference examples or clear guidelinesRequest one example of writing the brand loves before injecting voice; extract formality, humor, and relationship stance
Over-humanized technical documentationPersonality injection applied to content that needs clarity over personalityMatch humanization level to content type — docs need clarity; blog posts and marketing copy need personality
Specificity gaps flagged but cannot be filledWriter does not have access to real data, expert quotes, or original researchFlag clearly as "author must provide" — humanizer cannot invent proof points. Honest qualification beats vague authority
AI detection tools still flagging contentStructural patterns (SEEB uniformity) persist despite word-level changesVary paragraph structures deliberately — single-sentence paragraphs, questions, fragments, asides, confessions
Readability dropped after humanizationInformal language and fragments reduced Flesch scoreBalance personality with readability — fragments are fine but complex vocabulary can hurt scores. Target Flesch 60-70
Google SynthID or similar tool detects AI originContent was generated with tools that embed watermarks (e.g., Google Gemini)Rewrite substantially rather than editing in place; change structure, not just words. SynthID detection is statistical

Success Criteria

  • AI tell density: Fewer than 3 AI tells per 500 words after humanization pass (from baseline of 8+ pre-edit)
  • Unique paragraph structures: At least 4 distinct paragraph patterns in any 1,000-word piece (vs. uniform SEEB pattern)
  • Specificity rate: Zero vague claims remaining without either specific data or honest qualification
  • Voice consistency: Consistent formality level, humor usage, and relationship stance from introduction to conclusion
  • Read-aloud test: Content sounds natural when read aloud — no press-release cadence or robotic phrasing
  • Readability maintenance: Flesch Reading Ease stays within 55-75 range after humanization (no degradation)
  • Brand voice match: Content passes brand voice review with 90%+ alignment to documented voice guidelines

Scope & Limitations

In scope:

  • AI pattern detection and audit (diagnostic only or with edits)
  • Filler word replacement with context-appropriate alternatives
  • Sentence rhythm and cadence repair
  • Paragraph structure diversification
  • Specificity replacement (vague claims to specific or honestly qualified)
  • Voice injection from brand guidelines or example content
  • Consistency checking across full-length pieces

Out of scope:

  • Content creation from scratch (use Content Production)
  • Grammar and spelling correction (use Copy Editing)
  • SEO optimization (use SEO Specialist or Content Production optimization pass)
  • Content strategy or topic selection (use Content Strategy)
  • AI content generation or LLM API integration
  • Plagiarism detection or originality verification

Known limitations:

  • Cannot add specificity where no data exists — must flag for author input
  • AI detection tools (GPTZero, Originality.ai, Google SynthID) have false positive rates of 10-30%
  • Voice injection without clear brand guidelines produces inconsistent results
  • Humanization of very short content (<300 words) may not have enough surface area for meaningful improvement
  • Content watermarked by AI generation tools (SynthID) may require substantial rewriting beyond pattern-level edits

Scripts

# Score content for AI patterns and generate audit report
python scripts/readability_scorer.py article.md --json

# Detect AI filler words and hedging patterns with counts
python scripts/ai_pattern_detector.py article.md --verbose

# Analyze content for humanization opportunities
python scripts/content_scorer.py article.md --json

平台分布

Codex

36.2%
按下载量换算160

Claude

32.56%
按下载量换算144

Cursor

20.09%
按下载量换算89

Gemini CLI

8.77%
按下载量换算39

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

只读

该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills