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 agentmods add skills/cwinvestments/memstack/humanizenpx skills add cwinvestments/memstack --skill humanizegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/cwinvestments/memstackWhat 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 | $0.00032 | $0.01196 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00598 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00239 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00120 |
Grade A, and why
humanize 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 2d 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 117 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
✍️ Humanize — Rewriting for Natural Voice...
Remove AI tells and rewrite content to sound like a human wrote it.
Activation
When this skill activates, output:
✍️ Humanize — Rewriting for natural voice...
Then execute the protocol below.
Context Guard
| Context | Status | Priority |
|---|---|---|
| User says "humanize", "make it sound human/natural" | ACTIVE — rewrite content | P1 |
| User says "clean up this writing", "remove AI tone" | ACTIVE — rewrite content | P1 |
| User says "rewrite for blog/social/client" | ACTIVE — rewrite with audience in mind | P2 |
| User is writing code or technical docs (API refs, JSDoc) | DORMANT — technical writing is fine as-is | — |
| User is writing commit messages or changelogs | DORMANT — these have their own format | — |
Protocol
Step 1: Identify AI Patterns
Scan the content for these common AI writing tells:
Words to eliminate or replace:
| AI Pattern | Replace With |
|---|---|
| "delve", "delve into" | "explore", "look at", "dig into" |
| "leverage" | "use", "take advantage of" |
| "utilize" | "use" |
| "facilitate" | "help", "make easier" |
| "comprehensive" | (often removable, or "thorough", "complete") |
| "robust" | "solid", "strong", "reliable" |
| "streamline" | "simplify", "speed up" |
| "moreover", "furthermore" | (cut entirely or use "also", "and") |
| "it's important to note" | (cut — just state the thing) |
| "in conclusion" | (cut — the reader knows it's the end) |
| "in today's [X] landscape" | (cut entirely) |
| "game-changer" | (be specific about the benefit) |
| "navigate" (non-literal) | "deal with", "handle", "work through" |
| "paradigm" | (use a concrete noun instead) |
| "synergy" | "overlap", "combination", "fit" |
Structural patterns to fix:
- Excessive hedging: "It might be worth considering that perhaps..." → Just say the thing
- Hollow transitions: "Now, let's turn our attention to..." → Cut, or use a heading
- Overlong intros: "In the ever-evolving world of..." → Start with the point
- Bullet-point-itis: Every section as bullets → Mix in short paragraphs
- Triple emphasis: "truly remarkable and incredibly powerful" → Pick one adjective
- Sycophantic openings: "Great question!" → Don't; just answer
- Unnecessary qualifiers: "very", "really", "quite", "rather" → Usually cuttable
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 117 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 4d59f2a280a9
humanize is a skill published in the GitHub repository cwinvestments/memstack (417 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 1,196 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
ship
Ship workflow: detect + merge base branch, run tests, review diff, bump VERSION, update CHANGELOG, commit, push, and create a PR. Use for an explicit /ship invocation or when the user requests the full ship, release, or deploy workflow. For an ordinary commit, push, or pull-request publishing request, use the built-in…
plan-ceo-review
CEO/founder-mode plan review. Rethink the problem, find the 10-star product, challenge premises, expand scope when it creates a better product. Four modes: SCOPE EXPANSION (dream big), SELECTIVE EXPANSION (hold scope + cherry-pick expansions), HOLD SCOPE (maximum rigor), SCOPE REDUCTION (strip to essentials). Use when…
design-review
Designer's eye QA: finds visual inconsistency, spacing issues, hierarchy problems, AI slop patterns, and slow interactions — then fixes them. Iteratively fixes issues in source code, committing each fix atomically and re-verifying with before/after screenshots. For plan-mode design review (before implementation), use…
plan-eng-review
Eng manager-mode plan review. Lock in the execution plan — architecture, data flow, diagrams, edge cases, test coverage, performance. Walks through issues interactively with opinionated recommendations. Use when asked to "review the architecture", "engineering review", or "lock in the plan". Proactively suggest when…
autoplan
Auto-review pipeline — reads the full CEO, design, eng, and DX review skills from disk and runs them sequentially with auto-decisions using 6 decision principles. Surfaces taste decisions (close approaches, borderline scope, codex disagreements) at a final approval gate. One command, fully reviewed plan out. Use when…
retro
Weekly engineering retrospective. Analyzes commit history, work patterns, and code quality metrics with persistent history and trend tracking. Team-aware: breaks down per-person contributions with praise and growth areas. Use when asked to "weekly retro", "what did we ship", or "engineering retrospective". Proactively…