medsci-skills 4.1.0

package/skills/humanize/references/ai_patterns.md

@@ -0,0 +1,571 @@
+# AI Writing Pattern Reference for Medical/Radiology Manuscripts
+
+Detailed reference for the 24 AI writing patterns, with expanded examples and suggested
+rewrites specifically tailored for medical imaging and radiology research. Patterns 1-18 are
+the general set; 19-21 are senior-MA-reviewer red flags; 22-24 are response-to-reviewers (R2R)
+letter patterns.
+
+Sources:
+- matsuikentaro1/humanizer_academic (English 18 patterns)
+- Wikipedia: Signs of AI writing
+- Adapted for radiology/medical imaging context
+
+---
+
+## Content Patterns
+
+### Pattern 1: Significance Inflation
+
+AI inflates importance with vague claims about "broader impact" instead of stating specific
+clinical or scientific significance.
+
+**Watch words:** pivotal, evolving landscape, underscores, highlights its importance, setting
+the stage for, deeply rooted, focal point, indelible mark, paradigm shift, unprecedented
+
+| # | BAD (AI-generated) | GOOD (Human-written) |
+|---|-------------------|---------------------|
+| 1 | "CT plays a pivotal role in the evolving landscape of oncologic imaging" | "CT is the primary imaging modality for cancer staging" |
+| 2 | "This underscores the critical importance of early detection in improving patient outcomes" | "Early detection reduced mortality by 20% in the NLST trial" |
+| 3 | "AI represents a paradigm shift in radiology practice" | "AI-assisted detection increased sensitivity from 0.78 to 0.91" |
+| 4 | "Deep learning has made an indelible mark on medical image analysis" | "Deep learning models have achieved diagnostic accuracy comparable to radiologists in several tasks" |
+| 5 | "Setting the stage for transformative advances in precision radiology" | "These methods may improve lesion detection in low-dose protocols" |
+
+**Radiology-specific note:** Radiology papers are particularly susceptible to this pattern
+in introductions discussing AI/deep learning. State the specific performance metric or
+clinical outcome instead.
+
+---
+
+### Pattern 2: Notability Claims
+
+AI labels studies, institutions, or researchers with unearned superlatives.
+
+**Watch words:** landmark, renowned, prestigious, groundbreaking, impressive, seminal,
+pioneering, state-of-the-art
+
+| # | BAD | GOOD |
+|---|-----|------|
+| 1 | "This groundbreaking study from a prestigious institution" | "In a multicenter study of 12,000 patients (Smith et al., 2024)" |
+| 2 | "The landmark NLST trial" | "The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST)" |
+| 3 | "Using a state-of-the-art deep learning architecture" | "Using a ResNet-50 model pretrained on ImageNet" |
+| 4 | "These impressive results demonstrate" | "The AUC was 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91-0.97)" |
+
+**Radiology-specific note:** "State-of-the-art" is especially overused in AI radiology papers.
+Name the specific architecture and training approach instead.
+
+---
+
+### Pattern 3: Superficial -ing Analyses
+
+AI appends "-ing" participial phrases to sentences, creating fake analytical depth without
+adding information.
+
+**Watch words (at end of sentence):** highlighting, underscoring, emphasizing, showcasing,
+fostering, reflecting, contributing to, demonstrating, suggesting, indicating
+
+| # | BAD | GOOD |
+|---|-----|------|
+| 1 | "The AUC was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.90-0.96), highlighting the strong diagnostic performance of the model" | "The AUC was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.90-0.96)." |
+| 2 | "Sensitivity improved from 78% to 91%, underscoring the value of AI-assisted detection" | "Sensitivity improved from 78% to 91%. This improvement corresponded to detection of 13 additional malignant nodules per 1000 screens." |
+| 3 | "Inter-reader agreement was excellent (ICC = 0.92), demonstrating the reproducibility of the measurement technique" | "Inter-reader agreement was excellent (ICC = 0.92; 95% CI: 0.88-0.95)." |
+| 4 | "Processing time decreased by 40%, showcasing the efficiency gains" | "Processing time decreased by 40% (from 5.2 to 3.1 minutes per case)." |
+| 5 | "The false-positive rate decreased to 3.2%, reflecting improved specificity" | "The false-positive rate decreased to 3.2%." |
+
+**Fix strategy:** End the sentence at the data. If interpretation is needed, start a new
+sentence with a specific claim supported by the numbers.
+
+---
+
+### Pattern 4: Promotional Language
+
+AI uses adjectives and adverbs that promote rather than describe.
+
+**Watch words:** remarkable, dramatic, stunning, profound, extraordinary, exceptional,
+breathtaking, robust (unless describing a statistical method), comprehensive, innovative,
+novel (overused)
+
+| # | BAD | GOOD |
+|---|-----|------|
+| 1 | "Our model achieved remarkable diagnostic accuracy" | "Our model achieved an AUC of 0.95" |
+| 2 | "A dramatic reduction in false-positive rates was observed" | "The false-positive rate decreased from 12.3% to 4.1%" |
+| 3 | "This comprehensive framework provides a robust solution" | "This framework reduced processing time by 60% while maintaining accuracy" |
+| 4 | "The novel deep learning approach demonstrated exceptional performance" | "The proposed approach outperformed the baseline by 0.08 AUC points (p = 0.003)" |
+| 5 | "A robust and comprehensive evaluation was conducted" | "We evaluated the model on three external datasets" |
+
+**Radiology-specific note:** "Robust" is acceptable when describing a statistical method
+(e.g., "robust standard errors") but not as a general-purpose adjective for frameworks,
+pipelines, or results.
+
+---
+
+### Pattern 5: Vague Attributions
+
+AI attributes claims to unnamed sources instead of citing specific studies.
+
+**Watch words:** Studies have shown, Experts argue, Some researchers, It is widely accepted,
+Several publications, The literature suggests, It has been reported, Research indicates
+
+| # | BAD | GOOD |
+|---|-----|------|
+| 1 | "Studies have shown that AI can improve diagnostic accuracy" | "In a meta-analysis of 82 studies, AI systems achieved pooled sensitivity of 87% (Liu et al., 2019)" |
+| 2 | "It is widely accepted that MRI is superior for soft tissue contrast" | "MRI provides superior soft tissue contrast resolution compared with CT (reference)" |
+| 3 | "Several studies have demonstrated the utility of radiomics" | "Aerts et al. (2014) demonstrated that radiomic features predicted outcomes in lung and head-and-neck cancer" |
+| 4 | "Research indicates that prompt engineering affects LLM output quality" | "Prompt structure affected diagnostic accuracy by up to 15 percentage points in GPT-4V evaluations (Wu et al., 2024)" |
+| 5 | "It has been reported that CAD systems reduce reading time" | "Park et al. (2023) reported a 25% reduction in reading time with AI-assisted detection" |
+
+**Fix strategy:** Replace every vague attribution with a specific citation. If you do not
+know the specific reference, flag it for the user to fill in with `[CITE NEEDED]`.
+
+---
+
+### Pattern 6: Formulaic Challenges Sections
+
+AI produces template limitation/future-work sections that could apply to any paper.
+
+**Watch words:** Despite these limitations, Future outlook, Continues to provide valuable
+insights, Further research is warranted, More studies are needed
+
+| # | BAD | GOOD |
+|---|-----|------|
+| 1 | "Despite these limitations, our study provides valuable insights into AI-assisted diagnosis" | "The single-center design limits generalizability to community practice settings where case mix and image quality differ" |
+| 2 | "Further research is warranted to validate these findings" | "External validation on a multi-institutional dataset with variable scanner protocols is needed before clinical deployment" |
+| 3 | "More studies are needed to fully understand the potential of this approach" | "Prospective evaluation comparing AI-assisted and conventional reading in a screening population would quantify the clinical impact" |
+| 4 | "Despite challenges, the future of AI in radiology is promising" | "Integration into the clinical PACS workflow remains an engineering challenge requiring vendor collaboration" |
+
+**Fix strategy:** State the specific limitation, its consequence, and the specific study
+design that would address it.
+
+---
+
+## Language Patterns
+
+### Pattern 7: AI Vocabulary Words
+
+Words whose frequency increased markedly in post-2023 AI-generated text. Their presence
+at high density signals AI authorship.
+
+**High-signal words to eliminate or replace:**
+
+| AI Word | Replacement |
+|---------|-------------|
+| Additionally | (delete, or use "In addition," sparingly) |
+| Furthermore | (delete, or restructure the sentence) |
+| Moreover | (delete) |
+| Crucial | Important (or delete) |
+| Delve | Examine, analyze, investigate |
+| Enhance | Improve |
+| Fostering | Promoting, supporting (or delete) |
+| Garner | Receive, attract |
+| Highlight (verb) | Show, demonstrate (or delete) |
+| Interplay | Interaction, relationship |
+| Intricate | Complex (or delete if unnecessary) |
+| Key (adjective, overused) | Important, main, primary |
+| Landscape (abstract) | Field, domain (or delete) |
+| Leverage | Use, apply |
+| Multifaceted | (delete; describe the specific facets) |
+| Pivotal | Important, central |
+| Showcase | Show, demonstrate |
+| Tapestry | (delete entirely) |
+| Testament | Evidence, indication |
+| Underscore (verb) | (delete; state the point directly) |
+| Utilize | Use |
+| Valuable | Useful (or delete) |
+
+**Radiology examples:**
+
+| BAD | GOOD |
+|-----|------|
+| "Additionally, we utilized a novel architecture to enhance detection" | "We used a ResNet-50 to improve detection" |
+| "This crucial finding underscores the pivotal role of AI" | "This finding supports the use of AI" |
+| "We delved into the intricate interplay between image quality and model performance" | "We examined how image quality affected model performance" |
+
+**Rule:** If more than 3 of these words appear in a single page, the section needs revision.
+
+---
+
+### Pattern 8: Copula Avoidance (Avoiding "is")
+
+AI substitutes elaborate verb constructions for simple "is/are."
+
+**Watch words:** serves as, stands as, marks, represents [a], boasts, features, offers [a],
+constitutes, functions as
+
+| # | BAD | GOOD |
+|---|-----|------|
+| 1 | "CT serves as the primary imaging modality for lung cancer screening" | "CT is the primary imaging modality for lung cancer screening" |
+| 2 | "This metric represents a significant improvement" | "This metric is a significant improvement" |
+| 3 | "The dataset features 12,000 annotated images" | "The dataset contains 12,000 annotated images" |
+| 4 | "DWI stands as the most sensitive sequence for acute stroke detection" | "DWI is the most sensitive sequence for acute stroke detection" |
+| 5 | "This architecture constitutes a major advance" | "This architecture is a major advance" |
+
+---
+
+### Pattern 9: Negative Parallelisms
+
+AI overuses "Not only X but also Y" constructions.
+
+| # | BAD | GOOD |
+|---|-----|------|
+| 1 | "The model not only improved sensitivity but also reduced false positives" | "The model improved sensitivity and reduced false positives" |
+| 2 | "This approach not only streamlines workflow but also enhances diagnostic confidence" | "This approach reduces reading time by 30% and improves diagnostic confidence" |
+| 3 | "AI not only assists in detection but also aids in characterization" | "AI assists in both detection and characterization" |
+
+**Threshold:** More than 1 per section is a red flag.
+
+---
+
+### Pattern 10: Rule of Three Overuse
+
+AI forces ideas into groups of exactly three.
+
+| # | BAD | GOOD |
+|---|-----|------|
+| 1 | "accuracy, efficiency, and reproducibility" (repeated across 4 paragraphs) | Vary: sometimes mention two, sometimes four, as the content demands |
+| 2 | "detection, segmentation, and classification" | "detection and segmentation" (if classification is not relevant to the point) |
+| 3 | "clinical, technical, and educational implications" | Group naturally: state the specific implications rather than labeling categories |
+| 4 | "sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy" repeated 5 times | Report each metric where relevant; do not always bundle all three |
+
+**Detection method:** Search for the pattern `X, Y, and Z` -- if it appears more than 3 times
+in a section, the author (or AI) is forcing triples.
+
+---
+
+### Pattern 11: Synonym Cycling (Elegant Variation)
+
+AI avoids repeating the same word by cycling through synonyms, which creates inconsistency
+in medical writing where precision matters.
+
+| # | BAD | GOOD |
+|---|-----|------|
+| 1 | "patients... participants... subjects... individuals" | "patients" (consistent throughout, matching IRB language) |
+| 2 | "lesions... abnormalities... findings... pathology" | "lesions" (if referring to the same thing) |
+| 3 | "radiologists... readers... interpreters... physicians" | "radiologists" or "readers" (pick one per context) |
+| 4 | "images... scans... examinations... studies" | "examinations" for the procedure, "images" for the pictures |
+| 5 | "model... algorithm... system... tool... framework" | "model" (if it is a model) |
+
+**Radiology-specific note:** Inconsistent terminology is a real problem in radiology
+manuscripts. "Lesion" and "finding" have different meanings; "examination" and "image"
+are not interchangeable. Pick the most precise term and use it consistently.
+
+---
+
+### Pattern 12: False Ranges
+
+AI uses "from X to Y" where X and Y are not on a meaningful continuum.
+
+| # | BAD | GOOD |
+|---|-----|------|
+| 1 | "from improved detection to enhanced workflow efficiency" | "improved detection and workflow efficiency" |
+| 2 | "ranging from data augmentation to transfer learning" | "including data augmentation and transfer learning" |
+| 3 | "from clinical practice to research applications" | "in clinical practice and research" |
+
+---
+
+## Style Patterns
+
+### Pattern 13: Em Dash Overuse
+
+AI uses em dashes far more frequently than human academic writers.
+
+**Threshold:** More than 2 em dashes per 1000 words.
+
+| # | BAD | GOOD |
+|---|-----|------|
+| 1 | "The model -- trained on 50,000 images -- achieved an AUC of 0.94" | "The model, trained on 50,000 images, achieved an AUC of 0.94" |
+| 2 | "Three features -- size, shape, and margin -- were selected" | "Three features (size, shape, and margin) were selected" |
+| 3 | "CT -- the most widely used modality -- remains essential" | "CT, the most widely used modality, remains essential" |
+
+---
+
+### Pattern 14: Title Case in Headings
+
+AI capitalizes all major words in section headings. Most medical journals use sentence case.
+
+| # | BAD | GOOD |
+|---|-----|------|
+| 1 | "Statistical Analysis And Primary Endpoints" | "Statistical analysis and primary endpoints" |
+| 2 | "Deep Learning Model Architecture" | "Deep learning model architecture" |
+| 3 | "Inter-Reader Agreement Assessment" | "Inter-reader agreement assessment" |
+
+**Note:** Follow the target journal's style guide. Most radiology journals (Radiology, AJR,
+European Radiology) use sentence case for section headings.
+
+---
+
+### Pattern 15: Curly Quotation Marks
+
+ChatGPT and similar tools produce curly (smart) quotes. Many journal submission systems
+and LaTeX workflows expect straight quotes.
+
+| BAD | GOOD |
+|-----|------|
+| \u201csensitivity\u201d | "sensitivity" |
+| \u2018specificity\u2019 | 'specificity' |
+
+**Fix:** Find-and-replace all curly quotes with straight quotes before submission.
+
+---
+
+## Filler and Hedging Patterns
+
+### Pattern 16: Filler Phrases
+
+Empty phrases that add words without adding meaning.
+
+| # | BAD | GOOD |
+|---|-----|------|
+| 1 | "It is important to note that the AUC exceeded 0.90" | "The AUC exceeded 0.90" |
+| 2 | "It is worth noting that sensitivity decreased in smaller lesions" | "Sensitivity decreased in smaller lesions" |
+| 3 | "In order to evaluate diagnostic performance" | "To evaluate diagnostic performance" |
+| 4 | "Due to the fact that the dataset was imbalanced" | "Because the dataset was imbalanced" |
+| 5 | "At the present time, no consensus exists" | "No consensus exists" |
+| 6 | "With respect to image quality" | "For image quality" |
+| 7 | "The model has the ability to detect" | "The model can detect" |
+| 8 | "In the context of emergency radiology" | "In emergency radiology" |
+
+**Detection method:** Search for "It is" at sentence start, "In order to," "Due to the fact,"
+"With respect to," "has the ability to," "In the context of."
+
+---
+
+### Pattern 17: Excessive Hedging
+
+AI stacks multiple hedging words, making claims weaker than the evidence supports.
+
+| # | BAD | GOOD |
+|---|-----|------|
+| 1 | "may potentially suggest the possibility of improved outcomes" | "improved outcomes" (if the data clearly shows it) or "suggests improved outcomes" (if uncertain) |
+| 2 | "It could be argued that this might have some impact" | "This may affect diagnostic accuracy" |
+| 3 | "These findings seem to indicate that AI may perhaps assist" | "These findings indicate that AI assists" (if the data supports it) |
+
+**Calibration guide for radiology manuscripts:**
+- Strong evidence (p < 0.001, large effect, prospective design): State as fact. "AI improved detection."
+- Moderate evidence (p < 0.05, moderate effect, retrospective): Single hedge. "AI may improve detection."
+- Weak evidence (trend, small sample, pilot, single-center): Measured hedge. "These preliminary results suggest AI may improve detection."
+- Exploratory (secondary analysis, post hoc): Explicit qualifier. "In exploratory analysis, AI-assisted reading was associated with higher sensitivity."
+
+---
+
+### Pattern 18: Generic Positive Conclusions
+
+AI ends papers with content-free optimistic statements.
+
+| # | BAD | GOOD |
+|---|-----|------|
+| 1 | "The future looks bright for AI-assisted radiology" | (delete) |
+| 2 | "This paves the way for transformative advances in diagnostic imaging" | "Prospective validation in a screening population is the next step before clinical implementation" |
+| 3 | "AI continues to reshape the landscape of medical imaging" | "AI-assisted detection reduced missed cancers by 12% in this retrospective analysis" |
+| 4 | "These findings open new avenues for research" | "Future work should evaluate the model on external datasets with heterogeneous scanner protocols" |
+| 5 | "This work lays the foundation for future innovations" | "The trained model and evaluation code are publicly available at [URL]" |
+
+**Fix strategy:** Replace with the single most specific implication or the concrete next step.
+
+---
+
+## Senior MA Reviewer Patterns
+
+### Pattern 19: § (Section-Sign) Marker
+
+AI models frequently use the `§` symbol to point to sections in the body text. A senior MA reviewer recognizes this immediately as an "AI pattern" — a LaTeX-style notation that is almost never used in Korean or US medical-journal manuscripts.
+
+| # | BAD | GOOD |
+|---|-----|------|
+| 1 | "as described in §2.3" | "as described in the Methods" |
+| 2 | "(see §Discussion)" | "(see Discussion)" |
+| 3 | "§Results" | "Results" |
+
+**Detection:** `grep -c "§" manuscript.md` → must be 0.
+**Fix strategy:** Delete every § or replace it with the section name (`Methods`, `Results`, `Discussion`).
+
+---
+
+### Pattern 20: Methods/Results Self-Reference Parenthetical
+
+Self-reference parentheticals of the form `(Methods §X)`, `(Results §Y)`, `(Methods, Section 2.3)`. Frequently co-occurs with Pattern 19 (§). A reviewer judges that there is no need to cross-reference one's own section.
+
+| # | BAD | GOOD |
+|---|-----|------|
+| 1 | "We applied bootstrap resampling (Methods §2.3) to..." | "We applied bootstrap resampling (described in Methods) to..." or simply delete |
+| 2 | "The pooled estimate (Results §3.1) was..." | "The pooled estimate was..." |
+| 3 | "As shown in Table 1 (Methods)..." | "As shown in Table 1..." |
+
+**Detection:** `grep -inE "\((Methods|Results|Discussion|Introduction)\s*§" manuscript.md` → 0 lines.
+**Fix strategy:** Delete the parenthetical when the flow is self-evident. When an explicit pointer is needed, shorten to "(Methods)" or "(see Methods)".
+
+---
+
+### Pattern 21: AI Disclosure Boilerplate (Body)
+
+Boilerplate paragraphs such as "Artificial Intelligence Disclosure" / "Generative AI was not used to create..." / "AI Acknowledgement" appearing in the manuscript body. These are needed on submission forms and cover letters, but placing them in the body reads to a reviewer as a declaration that "this was written by AI" — an AI-generated signal.
+
+| # | BAD | GOOD |
+|---|-----|------|
+| 1 | An "## Artificial Intelligence Disclosure" paragraph at the end of the body | Delete the whole paragraph → state it only in the cover letter or submission form |
+| 2 | "Generative AI was not used to create, modify, or alter any images, figures, or tables in this manuscript." (in body Methods) | (delete) — the `~/.claude/rules/journal-ai-image-policies.md` boilerplate belongs only in the cover letter |
+| 3 | "We acknowledge the use of ChatGPT for language editing" in the Acknowledgments section | Move to the cover letter per journal policy, or reduce to "Language editing was performed" |
+
+**Detection:** `grep -inE "artificial intelligence disclosure|generative ai was not used|ai acknowledg(e)?ment" manuscript.md` → 0 lines (body).
+**Fix strategy:** Remove from the body → keep only on the submission form / cover letter. Exception only when the journal requires an in-body statement.
+
+---
+
+## Response-Letter Patterns (R2R)
+
+These three patterns are specific to response-to-reviewers (R2R) letters and editor cover
+letters. They rarely appear in manuscript bodies but dominate machine-drafted rebuttals,
+where the model narrates the editing process instead of the science. Apply them whenever the
+text under review is a response letter or cover letter. See the revise skill's
+`references/r2r_voice.md` for full before/after skeletons. Examples below are synthetic
+(a fictional deep-learning lung-nodule CT study).
+
+**Related (triage, not a fixed-string pattern):** *defensive over-elaboration* — pre-emptive
+cross-reviewer lobbying ("Reviewers 2 and 3 also accepted this"), defensive meta-comments ("we
+confirm this is unchanged and not softened"), manufactured paragraphs answering a satisfied
+reviewer, or a separate cover letter on an R2+ round when its content belongs in the
+response-letter head — is a succinctness / round-discipline issue, not a regex pattern, and is
+most common on R2+ rounds. The normative guidance lives in the revise skill (Step 5 +
+Response-Letter Voice), its `references/r2r_voice.md`, and the `rebuttal-letter-style` rule;
+humanize only cross-references it (no hard fail, no detection regex added here).
+
+### Pattern 22: Editing-Mechanism / Change-Log Narration
+
+The response prose narrates *how the text was edited* — what was added, where, how many phrases
+were swapped, which pass produced it — instead of stating what changed and why. The reviewer
+reads this as auto-generated and as checklist-clearing rather than scientific engagement.
+
+**Scope — this targets editing-mechanism narration only (avoid over-flagging):** narrating a
+*new analysis you ran* ("we performed a sensitivity analysis restricted to one eye per patient,
+and the result held") is the science the reviewer asked for — never flag it. Likewise "we added
+a sentence to the Methods: '...'", structured `Response:` / `Changes made:` blocks, and
+`Original → Revised` before/after pairs are normal human conventions. The tell is the *editing
+mechanism* layered on top, not the act of describing, quoting, or locating a change.
+
+**Watch phrases (the tell):** version-prefixed edits ("v2 Methods adds one sentence"), "we
+softened six phrases", "demoted the term at all N locations", "a grep-and-soften pass", "the v2
+revision changes", bare "No further manuscript change" stubs, "reframed via the vocabulary cascade".
+
+| # | BAD (editing-mechanism) | GOOD (substantive / science) |
+|---|---|---|
+| 1 | "v2 Methods adds one sentence: '...'. This is a short visible clarification rather than only in the Limitations." | "We agree the design is observational; we have added to the Methods: '...'" |
+| 2 | "We softened six over-interpretive phrases in Results and Discussion." | "We have rephrased the over-interpretive passages; for example, '...' now reads '...'." |
+| 3 | "No further manuscript change was applied." | "The existing Discussion text already addresses this; the relevant statement is '...'." |
+
+**Detection (triage, not auto-fail):** `grep -inE "v[0-9]+ .*(add|demote|soften|reframe)|softened [0-9a-z]+ phrases|no further (manuscript )?change|grep-and-soften|vocabulary cascade|demoted .* at all [0-9]+" response_to_reviewers.md` — review each hit and flag only genuine editing-mechanism narration, never analysis narration or quoted additions.
+**Fix strategy:** Delete the mechanism narration. State the substantive change and quote the new sentence; omit how it was found or made.
+
+### Pattern 23: Internal Line-Number Reference Tone
+
+Pointing reviewers to internal draft/markdown line numbers ("(line 43)", "at lines 43, 49,
+58, 60, 77–79"). These never match the reviewer's view of the revised manuscript and read as
+a diff log. Section names are what authors actually use.
+
+| # | BAD | GOOD |
+|---|-----|------|
+| 1 | "We clarified this at line 43." | "We clarified this in the Methods (Design subsection)." |
+| 2 | "Single-sentence clarifications were added at lines 43, 49, 58, 60, and 77–79." | "We added short clarifications to the Methods covering the design, the intervention, and the outcome definitions." |
+| 3 | "v2 line 127 retains this sentence and adds the adjustment after it." | "In the Results (Between-group comparison) we retained the original sentence and added the adjustment immediately after." |
+
+**Not a tell:** a **revised-manuscript** page/line ("page 7, lines 177-178") when the letter
+states once that all page/line numbers refer to the revised manuscript the reviewer is reading.
+The tell is the *internal draft* line number that will not match the reviewer's PDF.
+
+**Detection:** `grep -inE "\(line [0-9]+|at lines? [0-9]+|line [0-9]+(–|-)[0-9]+" response_to_reviewers.md` → review each hit; keep only those that demonstrably point to the revised manuscript.
+**Fix strategy:** Replace internal/draft line numbers with a section name; keep revised-manuscript page/line only if it matches what the reviewer sees.
+
+### Pattern 24: Tooling / Scaffolding Leak
+
+Exposing internal tooling, verification mechanics, or draft scaffolding to the reviewer:
+grep counts, internal FIX/category codes, references to "the circulated bundle" or "the
+internal supplementary index", or `§` self-references carried into the response letter.
+
+| # | BAD | GOOD |
+|---|-----|------|
+| 1 | "Final grep verification returned zero occurrences across the circulated bundle." | (delete — describe the corrected wording instead) |
+| 2 | "Addressed via the FIX-1 vocabulary cascade." | "We replaced [old term] with [new term] throughout the manuscript." |
+| 3 | "These strings remain only in the internal supplementary index, which is not part of the circulated bundle." | (delete — never reference internal scaffolding to a reviewer) |
+| 4 | "as reframed in §Discussion" | "as reframed in the Discussion" |
+
+**Detection (triage, except `§`):** `grep -inE "grep verification|grep-and-soften|circulated bundle|internal (supplementary )?index|FIX-[0-9]|vocabulary cascade|§" response_to_reviewers.md cover_letter.md` — only `§` is a hard 0 (always a tell). The other terms can rarely be legitimate (e.g., "a cascade detector", "we grep-checked our own data pipeline"), so confirm each hit is an internal-tooling reference before flagging.
+**Fix strategy:** Strip confirmed references to internal tooling, verification passes, and draft scaffolding. The reviewer should see only the science and the substantive changes.
+
+---
+
+## Section-Specific Application Guide
+
+### Abstract (ALL patterns)
+
+The abstract is the most visible section and the most likely to be checked for AI writing.
+Apply all applicable patterns (1-21) with zero tolerance.
+
+**Common abstract issues:**
+- Pattern 1 in the Background sentence.
+- Pattern 4 in the Results sentence ("demonstrated remarkable performance").
+- Pattern 18 in the Conclusion sentence ("paves the way").
+
+### Introduction (Patterns 1, 2, 5, 7, 12)
+
+- Opening paragraph: Check for significance inflation (Pattern 1) and AI vocabulary (Pattern 7).
+- Literature review paragraph: Check for vague attributions (Pattern 5).
+- Gap statement: Check for notability claims (Pattern 2).
+
+### Methods (Patterns 8, 16)
+
+- Methods should be the most straightforward section. Watch for copula avoidance ("serves as
+  the reference standard" instead of "is the reference standard") and filler phrases.
+
+### Results (Patterns 3, 4, 6, 10, 11)
+
+- After every statistical result, check for appended -ing clauses (Pattern 3).
+- Check for promotional adjectives before numbers (Pattern 4).
+- Check for synonym cycling of key terms (Pattern 11).
+
+### Discussion (Patterns 1, 5, 6, 17, 18)
+
+- First paragraph: Check for significance inflation (Pattern 1).
+- Comparison paragraphs: Check for vague attributions (Pattern 5).
+- Limitations: Check for formulaic language (Pattern 6).
+- Final paragraph: Check for generic conclusions (Pattern 18) and excessive hedging (Pattern 17).
+
+### Conclusion (Patterns 1, 18)
+
+- The conclusion should be 1-3 sentences stating the main finding and its specific implication.
+- No significance inflation, no generic optimism.
+
+### Response to Reviewers / Cover letter (Patterns 22, 23, 24 — plus 13, 16, 19)
+
+- Response letters and cover letters are reviewer-facing argument, not change-logs. The
+  dominant AI-tell here is the editing-mechanism register (Pattern 22), internal draft
+  line-number pointers (Pattern 23), and tooling/scaffolding leaks (Pattern 24).
+- Also sweep for em dashes (13), filler phrases (16), and `§` markers (19).
+- Patterns 1-18 still apply where relevant, but 22-24 are the highest-yield checks for this
+  document type.
+
+---
+
+## Quick Checklist (Pre-Submission)
+
+Run this checklist on the final manuscript before submission:
+
+- [ ] No "Additionally" / "Furthermore" / "Moreover" at sentence start (allow max 1 total)
+- [ ] No "pivotal" / "crucial" / "landscape" / "delve" / "utilize" / "leverage"
+- [ ] No "-ing" participial phrases appended to statistical results
+- [ ] No "serves as" / "stands as" / "represents a" (use "is")
+- [ ] No vague "Studies have shown" without a specific citation
+- [ ] No "not only X but also Y" (allow max 1 total)
+- [ ] No generic positive conclusions ("paves the way," "the future looks bright")
+- [ ] Consistent terminology throughout (no synonym cycling)
+- [ ] Em dashes: fewer than 2 per 1000 words
+- [ ] Hedging calibrated to evidence level (no stacked hedges)
+- [ ] Filler phrases eliminated ("It is important to note that," "In order to")
+- [ ] Straight quotation marks (not curly)
+- [ ] Sentence case in headings (unless journal requires title case)
+- [ ] AI pattern density < 2.0 per 1000 words
+- [ ] § (section sign): 0 occurrences (Pattern 19) — `grep -c "§"` = 0
+- [ ] (Methods §X) / (Results §Y) self-reference: 0 occurrences (Pattern 20)
+- [ ] AI Disclosure boilerplate in body: 0 occurrences (Pattern 21) — cover letter / submission form only
+
+### Response letters / cover letters only (Patterns 22-24)
+
+- [ ] No editing-mechanism narration (Pattern 22) — "v2 adds one sentence", "softened N phrases", "No further manuscript change" (analysis narration and quoted additions are fine)
+- [ ] No internal draft line-number pointers (Pattern 23) — "(line NN)", "at lines N, M" (revised-manuscript page/line is fine)
+- [ ] No tooling/scaffolding leak (Pattern 24) — "grep", "FIX-N", "circulated bundle", "internal index", `§`

package/skills/humanize/skill.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+schema_version: 2
+name: humanize
+layer: C
+owner_domain: ai_pattern_removal
+
+when_to_use: "Detect and remove the 18 common AI-writing patterns from an academic manuscript while preserving technical accuracy."
+when_NOT_to_use: "Drafting content (use write-paper); AI-search optimization (use academic-aio)."
+
+inputs:
+  - "manuscript / section text (Markdown)"
+outputs:
+  - "revised text with AI patterns removed"
+side_effects:
+  - writes_project_artifacts
+downstream_consumers:
+  - self-review
+  - write-paper
+forbidden_actions:
+  - alter_numeric_values_or_citations
+  - change_scientific_meaning
+
+# v2.1 quality card
+purpose: "Rewrite flagged passages to read as naturally human-written without changing facts, numbers, or citations."
+safety_boundaries:
+  - "Edits style only; never alters numeric values, citations, or scientific meaning."
+  - "Preserves the manuscript's technical claims while removing AI tells."
+known_limitations:
+  - "Pattern detection is heuristic; subtle tells may remain and need a human pass."
+  - "No standalone demo; judgement is required on borderline phrasings."
+validation_commands:
+  - "diff against the source to confirm only style changed"
+  - "/self-review"
+evidence_surface: manual_workflow