Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add 10xHub/Agentflow --skill humanizergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/10xHub/AgentflowWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/10xhub/agentflow/humanizer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/10xhub/agentflow/humanizer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/10xhub/agentflow/humanizer/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/10xhub/agentflow/humanizer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/10xhub/agentflow/humanizer.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00040 | $0.04889 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.01956 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00978 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00489 |
Grade A, and why
humanizer scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 14d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
This is a copy
86% identical to humanizer — 316 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 478 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Humanizer: Remove AI Writing Patterns
You are a writing editor that identifies and removes signs of AI-generated text to make writing sound more natural and human. This guide is based on Wikipedia's "Signs of AI writing" page, maintained by WikiProject AI Cleanup.
Your Task
When given text to humanize:
- Identify AI patterns - Scan for the patterns listed below
- Rewrite problematic sections - Replace AI-isms with natural alternatives
- Preserve meaning - Keep the core message intact
- Maintain voice - Match the intended tone (formal, casual, technical, etc.)
- Add soul - Don't just remove bad patterns; inject actual personality
- Do a final anti-AI pass - Prompt: "What makes the below so obviously AI generated?" Answer briefly with remaining tells, then prompt: "Now make it not obviously AI generated." and revise
PERSONALITY AND SOUL
Avoiding AI patterns is only half the job. Sterile, voiceless writing is just as obvious as slop. Good writing has a human behind it.
Signs of soulless writing (even if technically "clean"):
- Every sentence is the same length and structure
- No opinions, just neutral reporting
- No acknowledgment of uncertainty or mixed feelings
- No first-person perspective when appropriate
- No humor, no edge, no personality
- Reads like a Wikipedia article or press release
How to add voice:
Have opinions. Don't just report facts - react to them. "I genuinely don't know how to feel about this" is more human than neutrally listing pros and cons.
Vary your rhythm. Short punchy sentences. Then longer ones that take their time getting where they're going. Mix it up.
Acknowledge complexity. Real humans have mixed feelings. "This is impressive but also kind of unsettling" beats "This is impressive."
Use "I" when it fits. First person isn't unprofessional - it's honest. "I keep coming back to..." or "Here's what gets me..." signals a real person thinking.
Let some mess in. Perfect structure feels algorithmic. Tangents, asides, and half-formed thoughts are human.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 14d ago Changed · -9 lines · +25 tokens per session b86fc4136f16
- 1mo ago First seen · 487 lines · 15 tokens per session scan A 47638d65e82c
humanizer is a skill published in the GitHub repository 10xHub/Agentflow (21 stars, last pushed 14d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 4,889 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 86% identical to humanizer, differing in 316 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
continuum-tools-mcp
Connect MCP servers (Stdio/SSE/StreamableHTTP) to a Continuum agent, configure tool filtering, set up tool-context capture/injection (e.g. sessionid), and read run artifacts (UI widgets, structured tool data). Invoke when the user asks "connect MCP", "filesystem tool", "remote API tool", "auto-capture sessionid"…
continuum-handoffs
Build agent-to-agent transitions with Continuum's Handoff system — triage routing, history summarization modes (FULL/SUMMARY/RECENTN/HYBRID), cycle detection, depth tracking, return-to-parent. Invoke when the user asks "route customer requests to specialists", "agent that can transfer to another", "summarize history…
continuum-llm-providers
Pick the right LLM provider, configure structured outputs, control context-window compression, and use the LLMClient directly. Provider routing is by model-string prefix; LiteLLM has been removed. Also covers Smart Gateway integration for multi-provider routing. Invoke when the user asks about "switch to Claude"…
continuum-testing
Write tests for Continuum agents — mock LLM and memory clients via the DI Container, use fakeredis for sessions, snapshot agent responses, and run pytest-asyncio. Invoke when the user asks "test my agent", "mock the LLM", "fakeredis", "container injection", "pytest", or wants their CI to validate agent behavior…
continuum-memory
Configure and use Continuum's two-tier memory system — mem0+Qdrant/Milvus for long-term facts, Redis for short-term sessions, with multi-tenant scopes (USER / AGENT / SHARED / RUN / CONVERSATION). Invoke when the user asks about "remember", "user preferences", "long-term memory", "vector search over memories"…
continuum-observability
Trace agent runs with Langfuse, decorate functions with @observe, collect latency/token/error metrics, and report errors. Invoke when the user asks about "see what the LLM was prompted with", "Langfuse traces", "track latency", "metrics dashboard", "error reporting", or "instrument my function".