Skill: anderskev/review-ai-writing (version 1.0.2)

--- name: review-ai-writing description: Detect AI-generated writing patterns in developer text — docs, docstrings, commit messages, PR descriptions, and code comments. Use when reviewing any text artifact for authenticity and clarity. disable-model-invocation: true autoContext: whenUserAsks: - ai writing - ai-generated - sounds like ai - writing quality - humanize-beagle - robotic writing - chatgpt dependencies: - docs-style --- # Review AI Writing Detect AI-generated writing patterns across developer text artifacts using parallel subagents. ## Usage ```text /beagle-docs:review-ai-writing [--all] [--category <name>] [path] ``` **Flags:** - `--all` - Scan entire codebase (default: changed files from main) - `--category <name>` - Only check specific category: `content|vocabulary|formatting|communication|filler|code_docs` - Path: Target directory (default: current working directory) ## Instructions ### 1. Parse Arguments Extract flags from `$ARGUMENTS`: - `--all` - Full codebase scan - `--category <name>` - Filter to specific category - Path - Target directory ### 2. Load Skills Load required skills: ```text Skill(skill: "beagle-docs:review-ai-writing") Skill(skill: "beagle-core:review-verification-protocol") ``` ### 3. Determine Scope ```bash # Default: changed files from main git diff --name-only $(git merge-base HEAD main)..HEAD # If --all flag: scan all text artifacts find . -type f \( -name "*.md" -o -name "*.py" -o -name "*.ts" -o -name "*.tsx" -o -name "*.js" -o -name "*.jsx" -o -name "*.go" -o -name "*.rs" -o -name "*.java" -o -name "*.rb" -o -name "*.swift" -o -name "*.kt" -o -name "*.ex" -o -name "*.exs" \) ! -path "*/node_modules/*" ! -path "*/.git/*" ! -path "*/vendor/*" ! -path "*/__pycache__/*" ! -path "*/dist/*" ! -path "*/build/*" ``` If no files found, exit with: "No files to scan. Check your branch has changes or use --all." ### 4. Check for Existing LLM Artifacts Review ```bash # Check if llm-artifacts review exists to avoid double-flagging if [ -f .beagle/llm-artifacts-review.json ]; then echo "Found existing llm-artifacts review — will skip overlapping findings" fi ``` Parse existing findings from `.beagle/llm-artifacts-review.json` if present. When consolidating, skip any finding where both the file:line and pattern type match an existing llm-artifacts finding (specifically `verbose_comment` and `over_documentation` types). ### 5. Classify Files by Type Partition files into three groups: | Group | File Types | Patterns to Check | |-------|-----------|-------------------| | **Prose** | `*.md` | All 6 categories | | **Code Docs** | `*.py`, `*.ts`, `*.tsx`, `*.js`, `*.jsx`, `*.go`, `*.rs`, `*.java`, `*.rb`, `*.swift`, `*.kt`, `*.ex`, `*.exs` | vocabulary, communication, filler, code_docs | | **Git** | Commit messages, PR descriptions | content, vocabulary, communication, filler | For Git artifacts, collect recent commits: ```bash # Commits on current branch not in main git log --format="%H %s" $(git merge-base HEAD main)..HEAD ``` ### 6. Spawn Parallel Subagents If total items >= 4, spawn up to 3 subagents via `Task` tool. If `--category` is set, spawn a single agent for that category only. #### Subagent 1: Prose Agent **Scope:** Markdown files only **Check:** All 6 pattern categories **Instructions:** 1. Load `beagle-docs:review-ai-writing` skill 2. Read each markdown file 3. Scan for all pattern categories 4. Apply false positive checks from the skill 5. Return findings in the structured format #### Subagent 2: Code Docs Agent **Scope:** Source code files **Check:** vocabulary, communication, filler, code_docs categories **Instructions:** 1. Load `beagle-docs:review-ai-writing` skill 2. Extract docstrings and comments from each file 3. Scan for applicable pattern categories 4. Skip code itself — only check text in comments and docstrings 5. Return findings in the structured format #### Subagent 3: Git Agent **Scope:** Commit messages and PR descriptions **Check:** content, vocabulary, communication, filler categories **Instructions:** 1. Load `beagle-docs:review-ai-writing` skill 2. Read commit messages from the branch 3. If on a PR branch, read the PR description via `gh pr view --json body` 4. Scan for applicable pattern categories 5. Use synthetic paths: `git:commit:<sha>` with line 0, `git:pr:<number>` with line 0 6. Return findings in the structured format ### 7. Consolidate Findings Wait for all subagents to complete, then: 1. Merge all findings into a single list 2. Remove duplicates (same file:line and type) 3. Remove findings that overlap with `.beagle/llm-artifacts-review.json` 4. Assign unique IDs (1, 2, 3...) 5. Group by category for display ### 8. Write JSON Report Create `.beagle` directory if it doesn't exist: ```bash mkdir -p .beagle ``` Write findings to `.beagle/ai-writing-review.json`: ```json { "version": "1.0.0", "created_at": "2025-01-15T10:30:00Z", "git_head": "abc1234", "scope": "changed", "files_scanned": 12, "commits_scanned": 5, "findings": [ { "id": 1, "category": "vocabulary", "type": "ai_vocabulary_high", "file": "README.md", "line": 15, "original_text": "This library leverages cutting-edge algorithms to facilitate seamless data processing.", "description": "High-signal AI vocabulary: leverage, cutting-edge, facilitate, seamless", "suggestion": "This library uses streaming algorithms for fast data processing.", "risk": "Low", "fix_safety": "Safe", "fix_action": "rewrite" }, { "id": 2, "category": "code_docs", "type": "tautological_docstring", "file": "src/auth.py", "line": 42, "original_text": "\"\"\"Get the user by ID.\"\"\"", "description": "Docstring restates function name get_user_by_id without adding value", "suggestion": "\"\"\"Raises UserNotFound if ID doesn't exist.\"\"\"", "risk": "Medium", "fix_safety": "Needs review", "fix_action": "rewrite" }, { "id": 3, "category": "communication", "type": "chat_leak", "file": "git:commit:abc1234", "line": 0, "original_text": "Certainly! Here's the updated authentication flow", "description": "Chat leak in commit message: starts with 'Certainly! Here's'", "suggestion": "Update authentication flow", "risk": "Low", "fix_safety": "Safe", "fix_action": "rewrite" } ], "summary": { "total": 3, "by_category": { "vocabulary": 1, "code_docs": 1, "communication": 1 }, "by_risk": { "Low": 2, "Medium": 1 }, "by_fix_safety": { "Safe": 2, "Needs review": 1 } } } ``` ### 9. Display Summary ```markdown ## AI Writing Review **Scope:** Changed files from main **Files scanned:** 12 | **Commits scanned:** 5 ### Findings by Category #### Vocabulary (1 issue) 1. [README.md:15] **AI vocabulary** (Low, Safe) - High-signal AI vocabulary: leverage, cutting-edge, facilitate, seamless - Suggestion: Rewrite with simple words #### Code Docs (1 issue) 2. [src/auth.py:42] **Tautological docstring** (Medium, Needs review) - Docstring restates function name without adding value - Suggestion: Add meaningful information or delete #### Communication (1 issue) 3. [git:commit:abc1234:0] **Chat leak** (Low, Safe) - Commit message starts with "Certainly! Here's" - Suggestion: Rewrite as imperative commit message ### Summary Table | Category | Safe | Needs Review | Total | |----------|------|--------------|-------| | Vocabulary | 1 | 0 | 1 | | Code Docs | 0 | 1 | 1 | | Communication | 1 | 0 | 1 | | **Total** | **2** | **1** | **3** | ### Next Steps - Run `/beagle-docs:humanize-beagle` to apply fixes - Run `/beagle-docs:humanize-beagle --dry-run` to preview changes first - Review the JSON report at `.beagle/ai-writing-review.json` ``` ### 10. Verification Before completing, all of the following must **pass** (objective checks): 1. **JSON file exists and parses:** `.beagle/ai-writing-review.json` is present **or** you exited at Gate 1 with no scan (then no JSON is required). 2. **JSON validity:** If the file exists, `python3 -c "import json; json.load(open('.beagle/ai-writing-review.json'))"` exits 0. 3. **Subagent success:** If you used `Task` subagents, each returned without tool/runtime failure (failed spawn = do not write final JSON as if complete). 4. **Git HEAD captured:** When JSON exists, `git_head` matches `git rev-parse HEAD` (non-empty string). 5. **No double-flagging:** If `.beagle/llm-artifacts-review.json` exists, no finding duplicates its file:line + overlapping type for the skip rules in §4. ```bash # Verify JSON is valid (when file exists) python3 -c "import json; json.load(open('.beagle/ai-writing-review.json'))" 2>/dev/null && echo "Valid JSON" || echo "Invalid JSON" ``` If any check fails, report the error and do not proceed. ## Output Format for Each Finding ```text [FILE:LINE] ISSUE_TITLE - Category: content | vocabulary | formatting | communication | filler | code_docs - Type: specific_pattern_name - Original: "the problematic text" - Suggestion: "the improved text" or "delete" - Risk: Low | Medium - Fix Safety: Safe | Needs review ``` ## Rules - Always load `beagle-docs:review-ai-writing` and `beagle-core:review-verification-protocol` first - Use `Task` tool for parallel subagents when >= 4 items to scan - Every finding MUST have file:line reference (use synthetic paths for git artifacts) - Do not flag false positives listed in the skill - Do not duplicate findings from `.beagle/llm-artifacts-review.json` - Create `.beagle` directory if needed - Write JSON report before displaying summary ## Gates (sequenced pass conditions) Advance only when each **pass condition** is satisfied using artifacts (paths, exit codes, parseable output)—not an internal “I checked” claim. 1. **Arguments → scope** - **Pass:** You can list the concrete paths (or `git:commit:<sha>` / `git:pr:<n>`) you will scan. If that set is empty, emit the “No files to scan…” message and **do not** create `.beagle/ai-writing-review.json`. 2. **Scope → execution** - **Pass:** Each of Prose, Code docs, and Git (when in scope) has either completed subagent output **or** equivalent inline work with the same structured fields per finding. 3. **Consolidation → write** - **Pass:** Duplicates (same file:line and type) removed; when `.beagle/llm-artifacts-review.json` exists, overlaps with it skipped per §4; `git_head` equals the output of `git rev-parse HEAD` (non-empty). 4. **JSON → summary** - **Pass:** `python3 -c "import json; json.load(open('.beagle/ai-writing-review.json'))"` exits 0. 5. **Finding → verification protocol** - **Pass:** For each reported issue, you can cite the surrounding paragraph or function you used so the flag is evidence-backed (see `beagle-core:review-verification-protocol`). ## Reference Material ### AI Writing Detection for Developer Text Detect patterns characteristic of AI-generated text in developer artifacts. These patterns reduce trust, add noise, and obscure meaning. ## Pattern Categories | Category | Reference | Key Signals | |----------|-----------|-------------| | Content | `references/content-patterns.md` | Promotional language, vague authority, formulaic structure, synthetic openers | | Vocabulary | `references/vocabulary-patterns.md` | AI word tiers, copula avoidance, rhetorical devices, synonym cycling, commit inflation | | Formatting | `references/formatting-patterns.md` | Boldface overuse, emoji decoration, heading restatement | | Communication | `references/communication-patterns.md` | Chat leaks, cutoff disclaimers, sycophantic tone, apologetic errors | | Filler | `references/filler-patterns.md` | Filler phrases, excessive hedging, generic conclusions | | Code Docs | `references/code-docs-patterns.md` | Tautological docstrings, narrating obvious code, "This noun verbs", exhaustive enumeration | ## Scope Scan these artifact types: | Artifact | File Patterns | Notes | |----------|--------------|-------| | Markdown docs | `*.md` | READMEs, guides, changelogs | | Docstrings | `*.py`, `*.ts`, `*.js`, `*.go`, `*.swift`, `*.rs`, `*.java`, `*.kt`, `*.rb`, `*.ex` | Language-specific docstring formats | | Code comments | Same as docstrings | Inline and block comments | | Commit messages | `git log` output | Use synthetic path `git:commit:<sha>` | | PR descriptions | GitHub PR body | Use synthetic path `git:pr:<number>` | ### What NOT to Scan - Generated code (lock files, compiled output, vendor directories) - Third-party content (copied license text, vendored docs) - Code itself (variable names, string literals used programmatically) - Test fixtures and mock data ## Detection Rules ### High-Confidence Signals (Always Flag) These patterns are strong indicators of AI-generated text: 1. **Chat leaks** — "Certainly!", "I'd be happy to", "Great question!", "Here's" as sentence opener 2. **Cutoff disclaimers** — "As of my last update", "I cannot guarantee" 3. **High-signal AI vocabulary** — delve, utilize (as "use"), whilst, harnessing, paradigm, synergy 4. **"This noun verbs" in docstrings** — "This function calculates", "This method returns" 5. **Synthetic openers** — "In today's fast-paced", "In the world of" 6. **Sycophantic code comments** — "Excellent approach!", "Great implementation!" ### Medium-Confidence Signals (Flag in Context) Flag when 2+ appear together or pattern is repeated: 1. **Low-signal AI vocabulary clusters** — 3+ words from the low-signal list in one section 2. **Formulaic structure** — Rigid intro-body-conclusion in a README section 3. **Heading restatement** — First sentence after heading restates the heading 4. **Excessive hedging** — "might potentially", "could possibly", "it seems like it may" 5. **Synonym cycling** — Same concept called different names within one section 6. **Boldface overuse** — More than 30% of sentences contain bold text ### Low-Confidence Signals (Note Only) Mention but don't flag as issues: 1. **Emoji in technical docs** — May be intentional project style 2. **Filler phrases** — Some are common in human writing too 3. **Generic conclusions** — May be appropriate for summary sections 4. **Commit inflation** — Some teams prefer descriptive commits ## False Positive Warnings Do NOT flag these as AI-generated: | Pattern | Why It's Valid | |---------|----------------| | "Ensure" in security docs | Standard term for security requirements | | "Comprehensive" in test coverage discussion | Accurate technical descriptor | | Formal tone in API reference docs | Expected register for reference material | | "Leverage" in financial/business domain code | Domain-specific meaning, not AI filler | | Bold formatting in CLI help text | Standard convention | | Structured intro paragraphs in RFCs/ADRs | Expected format for these document types | | "This module provides" in Python `__init__.py` | Idiomatic Python module docstring | | Rhetorical questions in blog posts | Appropriate for informal content | ## Integration ### With `beagle-core:review-verification-protocol` Before reporting any finding: 1. Read the surrounding context (full paragraph or function) 2. Confirm the pattern is AI-characteristic, not just formal writing 3. Check if the project has established conventions that match the pattern 4. Verify the suggestion improves clarity without changing meaning ### With `beagle-core:llm-artifacts-detection` Code-level patterns (tautological docstrings, obvious comments) overlap with `llm-artifacts-detection`'s style criteria. When both skills are loaded: - `review-ai-writing` focuses on **writing style** (how it reads) - `llm-artifacts-detection` focuses on **code artifacts** (whether it should exist at all) - If `.beagle/llm-artifacts-review.json` exists, skip findings already captured there ## Output Format Report each finding as: ```text [FILE:LINE] ISSUE_TITLE - Category: content | vocabulary | formatting | communication | filler | code_docs - Type: specific_pattern_name - Original: "the problematic text" - Suggestion: "the improved text" or "delete" - Risk: Low | Medium - Fix Safety: Safe | Needs review ``` ### Risk Levels - **Low** — Filler phrases, obvious comments, emoji. Removing improves clarity with no meaning change. - **Medium** — Vocabulary swaps, structural changes, docstring rewrites. Meaning could shift if done carelessly. ### Fix Safety - **Safe** — Mechanical replacement or deletion. No judgment needed. - **Needs review** — Rewrite requires understanding context. Human should verify the replacement preserves intent.


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: suspicious | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: suspicious (MEDIUM)