A humanizer skill that keeps what a work email actually promises

Paweł Huryn@PawelHuryn

I've been trying different humanizer skills, and couldn't find the one for the work environment. They invent facts, don't preserve the meaning, make commitments, or drop them. This may have legal implications.

From the ones I tested:

- A plain "rewrite this to sound human" prompt told a customer their £45 refund had already gone through. The original said "we're refunding".
- Emulate-1, sold as undetectable, dropped the deadline for cancelling a subscription before it auto-renews.
- blader/humanizer, the 55K-star one, apologized to a customer for a deposit deduction the company believed was fair. In a dispute, that can read as admitting fault.

So for several weeks I've been experimenting with approaches. This is the sixth iteration of my skill, and I decided to make it public. I believe it best solves those problems. It's called work-humanizer.

It rewrites in a plain human voice and is built to keep what the text commits to. When something only you know is missing, it asks you instead of inventing it.

On 12 new work texts, 4 AI judges from 4 labs, blind, saw what the writer meant and picked the version they'd send:

- work-humanizer: 48%, 18 meaning changes
- blader/humanizer: 20%, 33
- "Rewrite this to sound human, without changing the meaning": 4%, 27
- "Rewrite this to sound human": 1%, 42
- Emulate-1: 0%, 120

I built it and designed the test, so I checked the judges too. The two I used while building it picked it 23 of 48 times, and the other two also picked it 23 of 48 times.

The thing that surprised me most was Pangram. Only Emulate-1 got through, and it changed the meaning more than any other tool.

But what I found: Pangram cares less about the words than about the reasoning structure. When I gave work-humanizer my own writing as notes, 4 of 4 texts scored 100% human.

Free and open source (MIT). Link in the reply.