AGENT SKILL

sepia

Make AI-generated writing read as human-written, in fiction and in professional prose. Repairs the narrative architecture of fiction and stories (based on StoryScope, arXiv:2604.03136); routes professional text through domain rules for release notes, announcements, PR and issue replies, code-review comments, incident postmortems, tickets, work orders, technical articles, and blog posts. Four operations - write, review (diagnose AI tells without editing), refactor (minimal in-place edits), recreate (full rewrite). Use when asked to humanize, de-AI, unslop, or strip AI flavor from any text; when writing or revising any of these document types; or whenever output must not read as machine-written.

适用职业内容创作者
使用场景写作与文案
License 许可
MIT
最近更新
2026-11-12
Stars
★ 0
Forks
0

01 前言 Front Matter

name
sepia
license
MIT
metadata
{ "version": "0.2.0" }
description
Make AI-generated writing read as human-written, in fiction and in professional prose. Repairs the narrative architecture of fiction and stories (based on StoryScope, arXiv:2604.03136); routes professional text through domain rules for release notes, announcements, PR and issue replies, code-review comments, incident postmortems, tickets, work orders, technical articles, and blog posts. Four operations - write, review (diagnose AI tells without editing), refactor (minimal in-place edits), recreate (full rewrite). Use when asked to humanize, de-AI, unslop, or strip AI flavor from any text; when writing or revising any of these document types; or whenever output must not read as machine-written.

02 资源文件 12

03 SKILL.md 正文

Sepia — de-AI writing

Every rule here is backed by a measured human-vs-AI gap. The load-bearing facts: in fiction, a classifier using only narrative-structure features detects AI at 93.2% macro-F1 and style editing barely moves it — so structure is fixed before style, always. In professional prose, the measured tells are different — filler density, missing stance, chatbot residue, register mismatch, format uniformity — and the fix is domain-specific. Route first, then operate.

Routing

Text type Load, in order
Fiction / stories / narrative essays references/narrative-pass.md → references/discourse-pass.md → references/style-pass.md; diagnose with references/rubric.md
Release notes, changelogs, announcements references/professional-pass.md + references/domains/release-notes.md
PR replies, issue replies, review comments references/professional-pass.md + references/domains/dev-replies.md
Incident postmortems / RCA references/professional-pass.md + references/domains/postmortems.md
Tickets, work orders, bug reports references/professional-pass.md + references/domains/tickets.md
Technical articles, blog posts, tutorials references/professional-pass.md + references/domains/tech-articles.md + references/discourse-pass.md §1–3
Any other prose references/professional-pass.md + references/style-pass.md

Every non-fiction route ends with the vocabulary/syntax scan in references/style-pass.md §2–3, and long professional pieces take the whole style pass — in both cases skipping its fiction-slop table. If the text was produced by a known model, add references/model-fingerprints.md (fiction-centric; use as priors).

Operations

Any request maps to one of four operations:

Operation Contract
write New content. Read the domain file before drafting — architecture and register decisions come first, they cannot be retrofitted cheaply. For fiction, follow Workflow A below.
review Diagnose only — no edits. Produce the defect list (fiction: rubric report; professional: checklist findings with quoted evidence) and stop. Report findings; apply nothing until asked.
refactor Minimal in-place revision preserving structure, voice, and intent. Two-stage: full defect list first, then fix item by item, deepest layer first. Skew replace/delete over insert (measured editor ratio 74/18/8).
recreate Full rewrite. Extract the facts, claims, and intent from the original into a bare list; verify nothing invented; write fresh under the domain rules. Use when defects are structural and the text is short enough that surgery costs more than rebuilding.

The two-stage protocol is not optional for refactor/recreate: paraphrasing without a defect list makes AI fingerprints more visible, not less (measured on expert detectors).

Fiction workflows

A — writing new fiction: (1) premise, genre, length — genre sets calibration targets; (2) fill the architecture sheet in references/narrative-pass.md; (3) select 3–5 human-leaning moves + one rarity move; (4) outline, run the outline/QUD checks in references/discourse-pass.md and the echo test in references/narrative-pass.md §2; (5) draft; (6) self-diagnose with references/rubric.md, one group at a time; (7) style pass last.

B — revising existing fiction: (1) diagnose completely first (rubric → discourse → style), no edits; (2) triage — architecture defects need scene-level surgery, tell the user how deep before cutting; (3) fix deepest first; (4) verify: re-run changed rubric groups, read key passages aloud, echo-test any added twist.

Calibration — the rule that governs all rules

Principle Meaning
Aim at the band, not the opposite pole Human values are moderate (chronological discontinuity 2.4/5, not 5). Inverting every AI tell creates a new fingerprint. In professional prose the equivalent: match the venue's register, don't overshoot into forced casualness — informality alone fools no trained reader.
Select, don't accumulate Human writing is diverse. Fiction: 3–5 moves per story, chosen for the premise, varied across works. Professional: fix what the checklist actually flags, nothing more.
Leave slack Ordinary sentences, an underdeveloped thought, a plain paragraph. Do not sand every surface.

Hard guardrails

  • Never invent specifics. Fiction: intertextual references, brands, places must be real and correct. Professional: versions, numbers, timestamps, benchmarks, quotes come from the actual change/incident/data — missing info means ask the user or leave an explicit TODO, never fill. Confident wrong facts are themselves a top-tier tell.
  • Deletion beats addition (74% replace / 18% delete / 8% insert). The only additive fix is real specificity.
  • Respect the author's voice and the venue's corpus. Extract habits from the user's samples or the venue's recent artifacts before editing; edit toward that profile. Do not remove a mannerism they actually use.
  • Dialogue quotes and quoted material are load-bearing — do not regularize them.
  • Check the whitelists (references/style-pass.md §7, references/professional-pass.md last section) before flagging: clean grammar, formal tone in formal venues, and conventional templates are not evidence of AI.

04 同仓库更多 Skills

endman100
endman100/skill-router-nexus

create-master

基于佛教经典文献,生成特定高僧大德的 AI 教学角色

教师与教育
★ 0
endman100
endman100/skill-router-nexus

writing-dna-skill

从至少 20 篇完整文章中蒸馏可复用的写作 DNA,分析语言、文章结构、选题逻辑、素材策略、认知框架和视觉风格,并生成 Writing-DNA.md;按该 DNA 写作时会读取全部蒸馏产物和 5 篇相关原文。用于中英文作者、账号、品牌或出版物的风格分析与一致性写作。 Distill reusable Writing DNA from at least 20 complete articles for Chinese or English authors, publications, brands, and accounts; use for language, structure, topic logic, source strategy, cognitive-frame, and visual-style analysis.

内容创作者写作与文案Skill与智能体开发
★ 0
endman100
endman100/skill-router-nexus

stop-slop

Remove AI writing patterns from prose. Use when drafting, editing, or reviewing text to eliminate predictable AI tells.

内容创作者写作与文案
★ 0
endman100
endman100/skill-router-nexus

shuorenhua

检查和清理中英文文本里的 AI 套路,适用于“去 AI 味”“说人话”“自然一点”“别像模板”“先标问题”这类改写和审稿需求;按场景控制力度,同时保留事实、术语、语域和责任主体。

★ 0
endman100
endman100/skill-router-nexus

naming

Name products, SaaS, brands, open source projects, bots, and apps. Use when the user needs to name something, find a brand name, or pick a product name. Metaphor-driven process that produces memorable, meaningful names and avoids AI slop.

★ 0
endman100
endman100/skill-router-nexus

humanizer-zh

去除文本中的 AI 生成痕迹。适用于编辑或审阅文本,使其听起来更自然、更像人类书写。 基于维基百科的"AI 写作特征"综合指南。检测并修复以下模式:夸大的象征意义、 宣传性语言、以 -ing 结尾的肤浅分析、模糊的归因、破折号过度使用、三段式法则、 AI 词汇、否定式排比、过多的连接性短语。

写作与文案
★ 0