Renhua
Turn Chinese AI/tech writing into a direct public draft that preserves the
author's judgment, facts, technical terms, and lived experience. Remove
AI-flavored structure without flattening the author's voice.
Default output is the revised text only. Add diagnosis only when the user asks
why a sentence feels AI-like or asks for audit-only feedback.
Paths starting with <skill-dir> are relative to this skill's base directory,
announced when the skill loads. Substitute that literal path; it is not an
environment variable.
When to Use
- Chinese AI/tech public writing: posts, X/Twitter threads, technical essays,
product notes, model reviews, internal notes being polished for publication.
- Requests like
去AI味, 改得像本人, 写推特post, 精修中文AI技术文章,
这段太AI, 像模型写的, 顺滑但没作者判断.
- Audit requests asking why a Chinese AI/tech paragraph feels AI-like.
When Not to Use
- Academic papers, journal sections, dissertations, abstracts, or norm checks:
use
humanizer-paper.
- Codebase-grounded README/API/architecture docs or JSDoc: use
document-writer.
- Tender, bid, procurement, RFP, or proposal documents: use
bidwriter.
- Paper intake, deep reading, DOI normalization, synthesis, or gap finding: use
paper-workbench or the relevant research skill.
- Detector-evasion framing such as "rewrite generated text so no AI detector
flags it": refuse that framing and redirect to legitimate authorship work
such as adding real tests, facts, evidence, and personal judgment.
Operating Priorities
- Preserve facts, numbers, product names, model names, dates, and technical
terms.
- Preserve the author's stance and uncertainty. Do not make the text more
neutral just to sound polished.
- Prefer concrete claims over abstractions. Keep specific tests, costs, model
behavior, engineering details, and workflow observations.
- Remove structure shells before polishing words.
- Do not add new examples, data, quotes, or personal experience.
Core Workflow
- Identify the target surface: X/Twitter post, long article, product note,
model review, or internal note.
- Extract the source material into four buckets:
- facts: dates, prices, model names, tools, test conditions
- judgment: what the author believes after testing
- experience: specific usage, failure, cost, workflow, or tradeoff
- action: what the reader can do or avoid
- Delete empty framing before rewriting:
- platform boilerplate
- AI disclaimer language
- lecture setup
- value-lifting summary
- short imperative hooks such as
别急着...先... or 顺序别反了
- conclusions that only repeat the previous paragraph
- Rewrite with short public-writing paragraphs. For X/Twitter, default to 3-5
paragraphs unless the user asks for another shape.
- Scan for banned shells from
references/pattern-rules.md. If one remains,
rewrite that sentence again.
Style Rules
- Use first person when the source includes direct testing or judgment.
- Keep English technical terms that Chinese AI/engineering writers normally use,
such as Agent, LLM eval, token, cache, API, GPT, Claude, and Codex.
- Use concrete verbs:
测了, 跑了, 拉到本地, 校验通过, 单测过了,
保留, 删掉, 改散.
- Prefer completed action when reporting completed work, for example
这轮我保留了 X,用它处理 Y.
- Use exact category nouns. Prefer
六类用途, 三种输出形态, 两个校验问题
over 几种东西, 几个方向.
- Keep mild roughness if it carries the author's voice.
- Do not use emoji, hashtags, Markdown tables, or numbered lists in public posts
unless the user asks.
- Avoid ending with an instruction to the reader. End on a concrete judgment or
result.
Pattern Rules
Read references/pattern-rules.md before rewriting or auditing. It contains the
full hard-ban catalog and examples for binary contrast shells, command-template
openings, fake insight markers, lecture colon, vague referents, wrong time
stance, vague comparatives, abstract-pressure endings, and slogan endings.
Residual-Pattern Reporter
For long drafts or when you need evidence for the final scan, run the reporter.
It reports coordinates only; it never rewrites text and is not an AI detector.
python "<skill-dir>/scripts/renhua_lint.py" --file "<draft.txt>" --json
If the text is not in a file, omit --file and pass it on stdin.
Audit Mode
When the user asks why something feels AI-like, return 3-6 concrete triggers.
Each trigger must quote the phrase and name the pattern.
Use this format:
1. 「...」:二元对比壳。直接说后半句承载的判断。
2. 「...」:伪洞察标记。删掉提示词,从事实起句。
3. 「...」:冒号讲义腔。改成普通句子或拆段。
Do not rewrite in audit-only mode unless the user asks for a revision after the
diagnosis.
Output Contract
- Normal rewrite: return the revised text only.
- Audit-only: return the trigger list only.
- Rewrite plus explanation, when explicitly requested: return revised text first,
then a short change summary.
1---2name: renhua3description: Chinese public-writing editor for AI/tech posts, X/Twitter threads, product notes, and public technical essays. Use for 去AI味, 改得像本人, 写推特post, 精修中文AI技术文章 — removes AI-flavored shells while preserving facts, judgment, technical terms, and author voice. Not for academic papers, codebase docs, bid documents, or AI-detector evasion.4category: docs-writing-publishing5tags:6 - chinese-writing7 - public-writing8 - ai-tells9 - technical-writing10 - social-posts11 - product-notes12 - model-reviews13version: "1.0.0"14argument-hint: "[text-or-file] [--audit-only]"15allowed-tools: Read, Write, Edit, Bash(python *)16---1718# Renhua1920Turn Chinese AI/tech writing into a direct public draft that preserves the21author's judgment, facts, technical terms, and lived experience. Remove22AI-flavored structure without flattening the author's voice.2324Default output is the revised text only. Add diagnosis only when the user asks25why a sentence feels AI-like or asks for audit-only feedback.2627> Paths starting with `<skill-dir>` are relative to this skill's base directory,28> announced when the skill loads. Substitute that literal path; it is not an29> environment variable.3031## When to Use3233- Chinese AI/tech public writing: posts, X/Twitter threads, technical essays,34 product notes, model reviews, internal notes being polished for publication.35- Requests like `去AI味`, `改得像本人`, `写推特post`, `精修中文AI技术文章`,36 `这段太AI`, `像模型写的`, `顺滑但没作者判断`.37- Audit requests asking why a Chinese AI/tech paragraph feels AI-like.3839## When Not to Use4041- Academic papers, journal sections, dissertations, abstracts, or norm checks:42 use `humanizer-paper`.43- Codebase-grounded README/API/architecture docs or JSDoc: use44 `document-writer`.45- Tender, bid, procurement, RFP, or proposal documents: use `bidwriter`.46- Paper intake, deep reading, DOI normalization, synthesis, or gap finding: use47 `paper-workbench` or the relevant research skill.48- Detector-evasion framing such as "rewrite generated text so no AI detector49 flags it": refuse that framing and redirect to legitimate authorship work50 such as adding real tests, facts, evidence, and personal judgment.5152## Operating Priorities53541. Preserve facts, numbers, product names, model names, dates, and technical55 terms.562. Preserve the author's stance and uncertainty. Do not make the text more57 neutral just to sound polished.583. Prefer concrete claims over abstractions. Keep specific tests, costs, model59 behavior, engineering details, and workflow observations.604. Remove structure shells before polishing words.615. Do not add new examples, data, quotes, or personal experience.6263## Core Workflow64651. Identify the target surface: X/Twitter post, long article, product note,66 model review, or internal note.672. Extract the source material into four buckets:68 - facts: dates, prices, model names, tools, test conditions69 - judgment: what the author believes after testing70 - experience: specific usage, failure, cost, workflow, or tradeoff71 - action: what the reader can do or avoid723. Delete empty framing before rewriting:73 - platform boilerplate74 - AI disclaimer language75 - lecture setup76 - value-lifting summary77 - short imperative hooks such as `别急着...先...` or `顺序别反了`78 - conclusions that only repeat the previous paragraph794. Rewrite with short public-writing paragraphs. For X/Twitter, default to 3-580 paragraphs unless the user asks for another shape.815. Scan for banned shells from `references/pattern-rules.md`. If one remains,82 rewrite that sentence again.8384## Style Rules8586- Use first person when the source includes direct testing or judgment.87- Keep English technical terms that Chinese AI/engineering writers normally use,88 such as Agent, LLM eval, token, cache, API, GPT, Claude, and Codex.89- Use concrete verbs: `测了`, `跑了`, `拉到本地`, `校验通过`, `单测过了`,90 `保留`, `删掉`, `改散`.91- Prefer completed action when reporting completed work, for example92 `这轮我保留了 X,用它处理 Y`.93- Use exact category nouns. Prefer `六类用途`, `三种输出形态`, `两个校验问题`94 over `几种东西`, `几个方向`.95- Keep mild roughness if it carries the author's voice.96- Do not use emoji, hashtags, Markdown tables, or numbered lists in public posts97 unless the user asks.98- Avoid ending with an instruction to the reader. End on a concrete judgment or99 result.100101## Pattern Rules102103Read `references/pattern-rules.md` before rewriting or auditing. It contains the104full hard-ban catalog and examples for binary contrast shells, command-template105openings, fake insight markers, lecture colon, vague referents, wrong time106stance, vague comparatives, abstract-pressure endings, and slogan endings.107108## Residual-Pattern Reporter109110For long drafts or when you need evidence for the final scan, run the reporter.111It reports coordinates only; it never rewrites text and is not an AI detector.112113```powershell114python "<skill-dir>/scripts/renhua_lint.py" --file "<draft.txt>" --json115```116117If the text is not in a file, omit `--file` and pass it on stdin.118119## Audit Mode120121When the user asks why something feels AI-like, return 3-6 concrete triggers.122Each trigger must quote the phrase and name the pattern.123124Use this format:125126```text1271. 「...」:二元对比壳。直接说后半句承载的判断。1282. 「...」:伪洞察标记。删掉提示词,从事实起句。1293. 「...」:冒号讲义腔。改成普通句子或拆段。130```131132Do not rewrite in audit-only mode unless the user asks for a revision after the133diagnosis.134135## Output Contract136137- Normal rewrite: return the revised text only.138- Audit-only: return the trigger list only.139- Rewrite plus explanation, when explicitly requested: return revised text first,140 then a short change summary.