From reidworks-core
Edit or write external-facing prose so it doesn't read as AI-generated. Apply to documentation, blog posts, tutorials, public READMEs, customer-facing slide decks, marketing copy, and competitive briefs — whenever the user asks to write, edit, review, or style-check such content, even if they don't mention AI. Apply when creating this kind of content from scratch. Do NOT apply to internal communications (Slack, Notion, internal PRs, meeting notes) unless the user explicitly asks for a style review. Trigger phrases include "write a blog post", "edit this doc", "review this tutorial", "write copy for", "external-facing", "customer-facing", "public README", "slide deck for customers", "competitive brief", "does this sound AI-generated", "check this for AI tells", "make this less AI", "remove the slop".
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/reidworks-core:human-voiceThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
AI-generated content has recognisable patterns that undermine credibility with technical readers. This skill defines constraints to prevent them.
AI-generated content has recognisable patterns that undermine credibility with technical readers. This skill defines constraints to prevent them.
Write like a person explaining something to a colleague. Not like a documentary narrator, not like a marketing brochure. If a sentence would sound strange said aloud to a coworker, rewrite it.
Do not use these words and phrases. They are AI tells.
Single words: crucial, pivotal, vital, comprehensive, robust, seamless, streamline, leverage (as a verb), foster, garner, underscore, showcase, delve, vibrant, tapestry, landscape (figurative), empower, unlock, harness, elevate, nuanced, intricate, multifaceted, actionable, holistic, paradigm, synergy, genuinely, intriguing, brilliant, aggressive/aggressively (as intensifier), non-starter, non-negotiable, game-changer
Phrases:
AI-preferred technical verbs: Do not use wire, scaffold, spin up, hydrate, surface, enrich (unless it's a precise technical term in your domain), or encode to mean "write down/document." Use the plain verb: connect, add, start, populate, show, document.
Em dashes are one of the strongest AI tells in prose. Even when each individual use is defensible, density gives the game away.
Limits by content type:
Rewriting parentheticals. The most common "defensible" use is a parenthetical aside. Use one of these instead:
Rewriting other common uses:
Scene-setting fragments: Do not open examples with screenplay-style fragments. "Consider a travel booking chatbot. A user types a query. Behind the scenes:" — rewrite as a normal explanatory sentence.
Three-beat punchlines: Do not use sequences of three short escalating sentences for effect. "Same model. Same question. Dramatically better response." — rewrite as one normal sentence.
Theatrical transitions: Do not use "Now for the main event —" / "Enter the new API." / "This is where it gets interesting." The content should speak for itself.
Foreshadowing: Do not write "More on that in a later section." Link to the section or don't mention it.
Self-referential callbacks: Do not write "This is why the earlier tip matters:" or "As we mentioned above:" — if the point is worth repeating, restate it directly without meta-commentary.
End-of-page trailers: Do not add summary-plus-preview paragraphs at the end of sections or pages. End when the content ends. At most, one short transitional sentence.
Performed deliberation: Do not state a position and then immediately contradict it as a rhetorical device to simulate balanced thinking. State the tradeoff once.
False contrasts: Do not imply the alternative approach is uninteresting or inadequate unless you can state specifically why.
Unsubstantiated comparatives: Do not write "smarter," "richer," "deeper," or "better" without naming the baseline. "Richer data" and "richer features" are especially common AI reaches — say what the data contains that makes it more useful, don't just call it rich. If you can't name the baseline, drop the comparative or say what makes it different.
Marketing adjectives: Do not write "meaningful," "powerful," "elegant," or "sophisticated" unless the meaning is precise and necessary. If you can't say what makes it meaningful, drop the word.
Grandiose scope claims: Do not write "complete transparency" or "from zero to full observability" unless those terms have a specific technical referent defined earlier in the content.
Dramatised escalation: Do not use the "what started as X becomes Y" structure. State the cost or outcome directly.
Speculation as fact: If you're inferring from limited evidence, say so. Use "this suggests" or "could create" rather than asserting.
Fake-precise numbers: Do not invent specific multipliers or ranges to sound concrete ("4–5× increase," "2× the coverage," "10+ years"). If you have a real number from a real source, cite it. If you don't, make the argument without a number.
Arrow chains as causal reasoning: Do not use "X → Y → Z" as inline shorthand for an argument. This skips the actual reasoning. Either make the causal claim in a sentence or put the chain in a diagram where the visual format earns it.
No two-item lists. If you have two points, write two sentences.
No bold first sentences as pseudo-headings. A bold fragment followed by a full stop and then explanatory prose is a fake heading — use a real heading or restructure. Bold terms or phrases used inline within a sentence are fine.
No formulaic headings. Do not use: "Putting It All Together," "The Full Flow," "Getting Started," "Conclusion and Next Steps," "What You'll Need," "What's Next." Use headings that describe the actual content.
No rhetorical question headings. "What Even Is a Skill?" / "What's the Bar?" — name the content instead.
Parenthetical context should be prose. If a parenthetical is doing real explanatory work, give it a full sentence.
No unnecessary numbering. Do not format every sequential process as Step 1 / Step 2 / Step 3 if the steps aren't truly discrete or ordered. Do not number rhetorical beats that aren't steps.
Summaries should not restate the introduction. A summary states conclusions or next steps. Don't re-explain products or concepts in the conclusion.
Use future tense for instructions the reader hasn't done yet. "You'll create" not "you create" for steps that are ahead of the reader.
Do not flatter the reader. "As a business expert, you already know..." — just state the fact.
Do not anthropomorphise technical components. Browsers don't "know" things. Say what they have access to.
Use code blocks, not quote blocks, for anything the reader might copy. Code blocks have copy buttons; quote blocks don't. Use language tag txt for plain text. This applies to documentation or tutorials only.
Use inline code for all identifiers. Variable names, field names, schema names, config keys — anything that's a literal identifier gets backtick formatting.
No consultancy stock phrases. Do not use: "best-of-breed," "category leader," "market leader," "table stakes," "the composable answer," "the [adjective] era," "future-proof." Name the specific advantage instead.
No concede-then-diminish. Do not acknowledge a competitor's strength only to immediately undercut it. If the point is that a capability is limited in scope, say that directly without the rhetorical setup.
Competitor comparisons should be specific. Name the specific capability, say what the competitor does, say what you do differently, and say why the difference matters for the customer. If you can't fill in all four parts, the comparison isn't ready.
Do not repeat the same claim across slides. State a point once.
No rigid binary columns as default structure. Side-by-side comparison columns are legitimate for specific feature comparisons. They are not the default structure for every slide in a deck.
Concrete before/after examples are in references/examples.md. Read that file when you need to see how a specific pattern plays out in practice.
npx claudepluginhub reidworks-io/reidworks-skills --plugin reidworks-coreCreates, edits, and optimizes skills for Claude Code, including drafting, evaluating with test prompts, iterating on performance, and improving skill descriptions for better triggering accuracy.