agentsclimarketplace

Proofread

Skill shuymn/skills/skills/proofread

Personal agent skills

Install
npx -y skills add shuymn/skills --skill proofread

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

2 things to look at

  • no licenseNo license file was found in the repository. Code published without one is not open source by default, so using it at work is a question for whoever answers licensing questions where you are.
  • 0 stars0 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 author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Review text for AI writing tropes and mechanical prose patterns, then report findings with concrete rewrite suggestions. Use when the user asks to proofread, lint, or polish writing — especially docs, blog posts, READMEs, commit messages, PR descriptions, or any prose that should read as human-written. Also use when the user says "check for AI slop", "does this sound like AI", "make this sound more natural", or wants to de-AI their text.

SKILL.md

3.9 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Path Resolution

  • <skill-root> means the directory containing this SKILL.md.
  • Resolve references/... relative to <skill-root>, not the caller's current working directory.

Not in Scope

  • Rewriting text on behalf of the user. This skill diagnoses; the user decides what to fix.
  • Grammar, spelling, or factual accuracy checks — use dedicated tools for those.
  • Code review or technical correctness.

Input

  • Target (required): One or more file paths, or inline text provided in the conversation.
  • Focus (optional): Specific trope categories to check. Defaults to all categories.

Procedure

  1. Load the tropes catalog: Read <skill-root>/references/tropes.md. This is the authoritative list of patterns to scan for.

  2. Read the target text: Read all target files or accept inline text. For each file, note its purpose (README, blog post, documentation, etc.) — context affects severity. A single "Not X — it's Y" in a 3000-word post is fine; five instances is a problem.

  3. Scan for tropes: Walk through the text looking for matches against the catalog. For each finding:

    • Identify the trope category and specific pattern
    • Quote the offending passage (keep quotes short — enough to locate, not full paragraphs)
    • Judge binary: finding (should fix) or not a finding (skip — do not report)

  4. Draft rewrite suggestions: For every finding, suggest a concrete rewrite. Preserve the author's meaning while sounding like something a human would actually write. Do not over-polish — imperfect but natural beats pristine but robotic.

  5. Produce the report: List all findings with rewrite suggestions. Include a count at the top.

Output Format

## Proofread Report: <filename or "inline text">

**Findings**: N

#### <Trope Category> — <Specific Pattern>
> <quoted passage>

Line: <line number or range, if from a file>
Suggestion: <concrete rewrite>

...

Judgment Calls

  • Frequency matters more than presence. A single em dash or one tricolon is not a finding. Repeated use of the same pattern is.
  • Context matters. "Let's break this down" in a tutorial aimed at beginners is defensible. The same phrase in a technical RFC for staff engineers is not.
  • Do not flag code or structured data. Bold-first bullets in a CLI --help output or API reference are conventional, not tropes.
  • Be honest, not exhaustive. If the text is clean, say so. Do not manufacture findings to justify the review.

Tropes Catalog

The full catalog lives in <skill-root>/references/tropes.md. It covers:

  • Word Choice: magic adverbs, "delve", ornate nouns, "serves as" dodge
  • Sentence Structure: negative parallelism, dramatic countdowns, rhetorical self-answers, anaphora/tricolon abuse, filler transitions, superficial analyses, false ranges
  • Paragraph Structure: short punchy fragments, disguised listicles
  • Tone: false suspense, patronizing analogies, futurism invitations, false vulnerability, truth assertions, stakes inflation, pedagogical voice, vague attributions, invented concept labels
  • Formatting: em-dash overuse, bold-first bullets, unicode decoration
  • Composition: fractal summaries, dead metaphors, historical analogy stacking, one-point dilution, content duplication, signposted conclusions, "despite its challenges" formula

Read the catalog before every review — it contains example patterns that help distinguish real findings from false positives.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 328,083. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.