By name: writing-anti-ai description: Remove AI-generated writing patterns from rebuttal prose to make it sound natural, direct, and authentically human-authored. Use when a Stage 2 refined draft or Stage 4 follow-up response reads too formulaic, robotic, or "GPT-like". Supports academic English. tags: [Writing, Rebuttal, Anti-AI, Humanizer, Polish] version: 1.0.0 source: Adapted from Claude Scholar (https://github.com/Galaxy-Dawn/claude-scholar), skills/writing-anti-ai/SKILL.md. Original authored by gaoruizhang; based on Wikipedia's "Signs of AI writing" guide (WikiProject AI Cleanup).
Writing Anti-AI for Rebuttal Prose
RebuttalStudio Utility — Stage 2 / Stage 4 / Polish Apply this skill after Stage 2 refinement or Stage 4 follow-up drafting when the output reads formulaic or over-polished. Use before the Stage 3 document compilation to ensure the final rebuttal sounds authored by a researcher, not generated by a model.
Remove predictable AI writing patterns from rebuttal text so it reads as natural, confident academic prose — not as machine-generated boilerplate.
Why This Matters for Rebuttals
Reviewers are experienced academics who read hundreds of papers and rebuttals. A rebuttal that sounds AI-generated signals:
- Lack of genuine engagement with the concerns
- Boilerplate responses that don't address the specific paper
- Reduced credibility and persuasiveness
The goal is not to hide AI assistance — it's to ensure the ideas and voice of the actual authors come through clearly.
Core Insight
LLMs predict statistically likely continuations. This produces text that applies to the widest variety of cases — which is exactly what makes it feel generic in a rebuttal. Rebuttal prose needs to be specific to this paper, this reviewer, and this concern.
Core principle: Every sentence in a rebuttal should only be true for this paper. If it could appear in any rebuttal, rewrite it.
Quick Checklist (Apply in Order)
1. Cut Filler Phrases
Remove throat-clearing openers and emphasis crutches that add length without adding meaning.
Common AI openers to remove:
- "In order to address this concern…" → "To address this…"
- "It is worth noting that…" → (delete or restate directly)
- "It is important to highlight that…" → (delete)
- "We would like to clarify that…" → "We clarify that…"
- "Due to the fact that…" → "Because…"
AI emphasis phrases to cut:
- "crucial", "pivotal", "paramount", "essential" (unless truly warranted)
- "delve into", "unpack", "dive deeper"
- "It goes without saying that…" → (just say it)
2. Break Formulaic Structures
AI tends toward predictable patterns. In rebuttals, these appear as:
| AI Pattern | Rebuttal Fix |
|---|---|
| "It's not just X, it's also Y" (negative parallelism) | Drop it; state Y directly |
| "First… Second… Third…" for every single response | Only use numbered lists when the reviewer explicitly listed multiple concerns |
| Em-dash reveals: "X — which shows Y" | "X, which shows Y" or split into two sentences |
| "This represents a significant advancement…" | State what changed specifically |
3. Vary Rhythm
Check sentence length distribution in each response block:
- Three consecutive sentences of similar length? Break or merge one.
- Every paragraph ending with a confident one-liner? Vary endings.
- Mix short punchy sentences with longer elaborations.
4. Trust the Reviewer
Reviewers are experts. Do not over-explain or over-justify.
Bad (patronizing): "To ensure complete clarity, and so that the reviewer can fully appreciate our contribution, we explain in detail…"
Good: "To clarify: [the specific point]."
Bad (hand-holding): "It could potentially be argued that the metric might perhaps be considered somewhat limited in scope."
Good: "The metric has a known limitation: [state it]. We address this in Appendix B."
5. Remove Pull-Quote Language
If a sentence sounds like it was written to be quoted or highlighted, rewrite it.
Bad: "This represents a paradigm shift in how the community will approach [problem]."
Good: "The method reduces [specific metric] by X% over [specific baseline], enabling [specific application]."
6. Use First-Person Plural Correctly
Academic rebuttals use "we" — but AI-generated text often over-hedges or over-personalizes.
Too hedged: "The authors feel that it may be the case that…" → "We argue that…" Over-personalized: "We personally believe that…" → "We believe that…"
Common AI Vocabulary in Rebuttals to Avoid
These words are statistically overrepresented in AI-generated academic text:
| Overused | Replace With |
|---|---|
| additionally | also / and / (restructure sentence) |
| furthermore | (restructure sentence) |
| notably | (delete or be specific) |
| it is worth noting | (just state the point) |
| comprehensive | thorough / complete (or be specific) |
| leverage | use |
| utilize | use |
| facilitate | help / enable |
| demonstrate | show |
| novel | (be specific about what is new) |
Scoring: Is the Rebuttal Prose Human?
Rate each response block (0–10 points each):
| Dimension | 0 pts | 10 pts |
|---|---|---|
| Directness | Opens with filler, buries the answer | States the answer in the first sentence |
| Specificity | Could appear in any rebuttal | References this specific paper, reviewer comment, or result |
| Rhythm | All sentences same length | Mix of short and long sentences |
| Tone | Defensive or overly formal | Collegial, confident, factual |
| Density | Padded with acknowledgments | Information-dense; every sentence moves forward |
40–50: Ready to submit. 30–39: Needs targeted edits. < 30: Rewrite from outline.
What NOT to Change
This skill only removes AI patterns. Do not:
- Alter technical claims or experimental results
- Remove citations or evidence
- Change
{{placeholder}}tokens - Modify quoted reviewer text
- Change the structure required by Stage 2 output format (the
> **Reviewer's Comment**:/**Response**:block)
Adapted from Claude Scholar's writing-anti-ai skill. Original authored by gaoruizhang. Based on Wikipedia: Signs of AI writing, maintained by WikiProject AI Cleanup. Source: https://github.com/Galaxy-Dawn/claude-scholar/blob/main/skills/writing-anti-ai/SKILL.md