Strip the ai voice
Strip the "AI voice" from Chinese text by deletion, not rewriting. Removes honorifics (您/请), filler particles (哦/呢), adjective/adverb padding, self-explanation, and reader-conclusions — using a concrete delete-test, not a vague "make it natural". Trigger when the user says "去掉 AI 味", "这段中文太 AI 了 / 帮我改克制点", "strip the AI tone from this Chinese", or "make this Chinese read like a professional / archival document". Direction is subtraction, not addition. Do NOT trigger for: making text MORE casual or human/网感 (that is the opposite, addition — use a humanizer), translating, or editing English. Operates only on AI-generated copy; never alters the user's own source prose.From its SKILL.md
npx -y skills add k-anss/whetstone --skill strip-the-ai-voiceAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 1 stars1 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its file declares
Copied from the file, not written here
The file declares its own license as MIT. That is the author’s claim about this one file, and it is not the same thing as the license GitHub reports for the repository, which is listed with the other numbers below.
SKILL.md
5.1 KB, 991 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it
strip-the-ai-voice
AI Chinese reads wrong because of what it adds. Don't rewrite it — delete it.
Three load-bearing positions
1. The AI voice is added, so the fix is deletion, not revision
- Rule: Never paraphrase a sentence to make it "sound natural". Remove the added material; keep what remains.
- Mechanism: Rewrite-style humanizing is unrepeatable — each pass can introduce new decoration, and the same input gives different outputs. Deletion is single-direction and checkable sentence by sentence: either a word was removed or it wasn't.
- Field observation: Archival documents written under a strict restraint standard, when run through "polish the wording" tools, regress — honorifics and adjectives come back. Only delete-only rules held the restraint across repeated edits.
- Boundary: If the text is missing information (not over-decorated), deletion cannot fix it. Report the gap; do not write new content to fill it.
2. The criterion is the delete-test, not taste
- Rule: Delete every adjective and adverb in the sentence. If the remainder stands, use the remainder. If the remainder is a stump, the whole sentence was decoration — delete the sentence.
- Mechanism: This turns the subjective question "is this restrained enough" into a binary, repeatable check. Two runs on the same text converge to the same output.
- Field observation: "读者将会深刻地感受到机制的精妙之处" → after deletion: "读者会感受到机制" → a stump → delete the whole sentence. The sentence carried no information; the test exposed it.
- Boundary: The test judges decoration, not correctness. A restrained sentence can still be wrong; that is outside this skill.
3. Touch only AI-generated copy. Never the user's prose
- Rule: This skill operates on copy the tool itself produced — labels, prompts, captions, sign-offs, boilerplate. The user's own writing is not edited, not even one character.
- Mechanism: Restraint is a discipline for what the tool says, not a license to override the author. Editing the author's prose is a different act with different stakes — and a deletion there is irreversible.
- Field observation: This line recurs in the source protocols this skill was distilled from: "只管你自己生成的文案,正文一个字不动". The skills that held that line stayed usable; mixing the two scopes is where trust breaks.
- Boundary: If the user explicitly hands over their own prose and asks for this treatment, the scope changes by their instruction — state the new scope back before deleting.
Map
| Task | Load |
|---|---|
| What to delete (four classes, word lists) | reference/delete-list.md |
| The delete-test; delete-word vs delete-sentence line | reference/the-test.md |
| Hard forbidden items; symbol rule (structural stays, emotional goes) | reference/forbidden.md |
| ✗→✓ before/after table | reference/examples-table.md |
| Full worked example | examples/before-after.md |
| Adaptation lineage and test record (vs humanizer-zh) | examples/lineage-test.md |
Workflow gate
Before deleting anything, state in one line: which spans are AI-generated copy to be processed, and where the user's own prose begins. If that boundary cannot be drawn, stop (see Failure behavior).
Fields
- Version: 0.1 (2026-06). Changelog: corrections are marked in place, not erased.
- Sunset condition: Retire when base models stop emitting honorific- and decoration-laden Chinese by default, and "去 AI 味" stops recurring as a request.
- Failure behavior: Cannot tell AI copy from user prose → stop and ask. Never delete text that might be the user's original (irreversible). No silent best-effort output.
- Composition: composes-with any Chinese writing skill. conflicts-with: humanizer-zh — opposite direction (it adds human texture; this deletes decoration). Do not apply both to the same text. Explicit user instruction overrides this skill.
- Time: Judgment fixed 2026-06. The default "AI flavor" shifts with model generations; review in 12–18 months.
- Boundary conditions: Validated on professional, formal, and archival Chinese copy. Not for marketing copy, emotional writing, or any text where spoken warmth is the point — there, deletion makes it worse, and this skill should stay silent.
What ships with it: 15 files
26.4 KB alongside SKILL.md
examples/
- before-after.md1.9 KB
- before-after.zh.md1.7 KB
- lineage-test.md1.5 KB
- lineage-test.zh.md1.3 KB
reference/
- delete-list.md1.9 KB
- delete-list.zh.md1.6 KB
- examples-table.md1.4 KB
- examples-table.zh.md1.4 KB
- forbidden.md1.4 KB
- forbidden.zh.md1.2 KB
- the-test.md1.4 KB
- the-test.zh.md1.1 KB
- README.md2.3 KB
- README.zh.md2.0 KB
- SKILL.zh.md4.3 KB