From researcher-skills
Use when the user asks to check whether text was written by AI, detect AI-generated content, or review text for signs of ChatGPT, Claude, or other LLM authorship.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/researcher-skills:detect-ai-textThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Reviews text for linguistic patterns commonly associated with AI-generated content and recommends dedicated detection tools. Pattern-based — not a classifier.
Reviews text for linguistic patterns commonly associated with AI-generated content and recommends dedicated detection tools. Pattern-based — not a classifier.
No pattern check can reliably confirm or deny AI authorship. Understand these constraints before reporting any finding:
| Limitation | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| High false-positive rate | Non-native English speakers, formal academic writing, and some disciplines naturally match AI patterns |
| Easily evaded | One pass through a paraphrasing tool removes most detectable signals |
| No ground truth | Without the original prompt or generation log, certainty is impossible |
| Model-specific | Patterns differ across GPT-4, Claude, Gemini, etc. — no single fingerprint covers all |
Never label text as definitively AI-generated based on pattern analysis alone. Report findings as indicators, not verdicts.
| Indicator | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Transitional over-reliance | Excessive use of Furthermore, Moreover, Additionally, It is worth noting that | Every paragraph opens with a connector |
| Hedging clusters | Dense stacking of hedges: may potentially suggest, could possibly indicate | More than 2 hedges per sentence |
| Balanced sentence rhythm | Unnaturally consistent sentence length throughout — no short punchy sentences, no very long ones | All sentences 20–30 words |
| Generic examples | Vague, non-specific illustrations (for example, in many industries…) | No concrete names, dates, or places |
| Symmetrical structure | Every paragraph has exactly: topic sentence + 2–3 supporting points + conclusion | Robot-like consistency across all paragraphs |
| Filler openings | It is important to note that, In today's world, In conclusion, it is clear that | Common AI boilerplate phrases |
| Passive voice saturation | Unusually high proportion of passive constructions throughout | Entire sections with no active voice |
| Overly comprehensive lists | Lists that feel exhaustive but shallow — covering every angle with no depth | Bullet lists of 6–8 items that say nothing specific |
| Indicator | Description |
|---|---|
| No concrete detail | Lacks specific data, named studies, dates, or institutions that a human researcher would naturally include |
| No personal stance | Presents all sides without ever committing to a position (in contexts where that is expected) |
| Temporal vagueness | Avoids specific years; uses recently, in modern times, contemporary |
| Hallucination markers | Plausible-sounding but unverifiable citations — check any cited sources carefully |
Count triggered indicator categories:
| Triggers | Assessment |
|---|---|
| 0–1 | Low suspicion — consistent with human writing |
| 2–3 | Moderate suspicion — some AI-associated patterns; inconclusive |
| 4–5 | High suspicion — multiple strong signals; recommend dedicated tool |
| 6+ | Very high suspicion — pervasive AI patterns; strongly recommend tool + human review |
Always report as: "X of Y indicators triggered — [Low/Moderate/High/Very High] suspicion. Not conclusive."
For a second opinion, use purpose-built classifiers:
| Tool | Notes |
|---|---|
| GPTZero (gptzero.me) | Free tier available; highlights sentence-level perplexity |
| Originality.ai | Paid; popular for academic use |
| Copyleaks AI Detector | Combines plagiarism + AI detection |
| Turnitin AI Writing Indicator | Integrated into Turnitin; used by many universities |
| Writer AI Content Detector | Free; basic |
All tools have false-positive rates of 5–20% depending on text type. Non-native English, highly technical text, and legal/formal writing score higher regardless of authorship.
| Issue | Guidance |
|---|---|
| Кальки з англійської | Ukrainian AI text is often generated in English then machine-translated — look for unnatural calques: приймати до уваги, в той час як, на основі вищезазначеного |
| AI-кліше українською | Common Ukrainian AI boilerplate: варто зазначити, слід відмітити, важливо підкреслити, у сучасних умовах, в умовах глобалізації |
| Суржик в AI тексті | Ukrainian AI output sometimes mixes Russian and Ukrainian — both a grammar error and an AI signal |
| Інструменти | Most English-focused detectors (GPTZero, Originality.ai) are less accurate for Ukrainian text; prefer Unicheck's AI detection module or Copyleaks (which supports Ukrainian) |
| Хибні спрацювання | Formal Ukrainian bureaucratic and academic register naturally resembles AI output — be especially cautious before flagging Ukrainian academic text |
| Mistake | Fix |
|---|---|
| Reporting a verdict ("this IS AI-written") | Always use "indicators suggest" / "patterns consistent with" |
| Flagging formal academic register as AI | Academic writing naturally uses many AI-associated patterns |
| Ignoring context | A student known for poor writing submitting perfect prose is different from a native speaker's thesis |
| Not checking cited sources | Hallucinated references are the most actionable signal — always verify citations |
Guides creation, editing, and verification of skills for AI coding agents using test-driven development with subagent scenarios. Use when authoring or debugging skills.
npx claudepluginhub vadym-khodak/researcher-skills --plugin researcher-skills