{"id":18909,"plugin_id":"plugins_6a8d93a8e8388191a09e7b25ed86e3fb","kind":"skill","collection_source":null,"comparison_source":null,"observed_at":"2026-09-30T23:15:01.848Z","digest":"ea28e85634bf882ca4c773301f908b95b1c293416baf7248b337c2d51e8ff6b1","against":null,"payload":{"description":"Use when auditing or rewriting a technical or practitioner post that feels AI-written, over-polished, repetitive, over-structured, or unlike the demonstrated speaker while preserving meaning, evidence, and useful roughness.","included_files":[{"relative_path":"references/anti-patterns.md","size_in_bytes":1533},{"relative_path":"references/pattern-engine.md","size_in_bytes":2082},{"relative_path":"references/quality-rubric.md","size_in_bytes":992},{"relative_path":"references/routing-map.json","size_in_bytes":852},{"relative_path":"references/voice-profile.md","size_in_bytes":2615}],"name":"voice-fidelity-reviewer","skill_md_contents":"---\nname: voice-fidelity-reviewer\ndescription: Use when auditing or rewriting a technical or practitioner post that feels AI-written, over-polished, repetitive, over-structured, or unlike the demonstrated speaker while preserving meaning, evidence, and useful roughness.\n---\n\n# Voice Fidelity Reviewer\n\nRepair residue without sanitizing the person.\n\n## Priority\n\n1. factual and numeric fidelity\n2. current user intent\n3. demonstrated voice in supplied samples\n4. natural thought movement\n5. readability\n6. polish\n\nPolish comes last.\n\n## Audit\n\nLook for:\n\n- repeated binary reframes\n- generic insight sentences\n- textbook headings\n- decorative English\n- repeated “this is important” instructions\n- fake certainty\n- vague expert or source references\n- duplicated conclusions\n- generic engagement bait\n- uniform paragraph geometry\n- every paragraph trying to sound quotable\n- excessive reader check-ins\n- humor added where the source voice would stay serious\n\nAlso identify useful roughness that must stay.\n\n## Rewrite rules\n\n- Preserve the original thesis and supplied proof.\n- Cut repeated ideas, not repeated emphasis that carries timing or identity.\n- Replace polished professional filler with the speaker's normal vocabulary.\n- Vary paragraph rhythm naturally.\n- Keep professional English terms that belong to the work.\n- If a claim is stronger than the evidence, qualify it.\n- Do not invent a personal anecdote to make the draft feel human.\n\n## Output\n\nIf the user asks only for a rewrite, return the revised draft without an audit report.\n\nIf the user asks for analysis, provide the smallest useful audit followed by the revised version when requested.\n"},"changes":[],"summary":"First saved snapshot. No earlier version is available for comparison.","summary_kind":"deterministic","summary_metadata":{}}