Audit

• Hard limit: 280 chars per tweet, or use threads (4-8 tweets) for depth.
• Lead with a hook. First line must stop the scroll.
• Second-person ("you") over third-person. Personal > abstract.
• 1-2 hashtags max. Three or more kills engagement.
• No external links in tweet body — algorithm buries them. Link in reply or bio.
• Short sentences, clear breaks. Write for speed.
• Threads: each tweet should standalone but pull you to the next. End each with an incomplete thought or question.
• Contrarian takes work when backed by experience. "Unpopular opinion:" is overused — skip the label, just state the take.
• Emojis: 0-2 per tweet. Functional, not decorative.
• No corporate voice. Write like a person texting a smart friend.

Reddit

• Adapt tone to the subreddit. r/askhistorians ≠ r/programming ≠ r/startups.
• Conversational, peer-to-peer. You're talking to someone at a meetup, not presenting at a conference.
• Short paragraphs. 2-3 sentences max per paragraph. Walls of text get skipped.
• Personal experience > abstract claims. "I built X and here's what happened" beats "Studies show that X."
• Support claims with links when making factual assertions.
• Never sound like content marketing. Redditors have zero tolerance for it — promotional language gets downvoted immediately.
• Humor lands differently per sub. Read the room.
• Use markdown formatting: > quotes for context, **bold** sparingly, code blocks for code.
• TL;DR at the top for long posts, not the bottom.
• Edit notes after changes: "Edit: clarified X" not "Edit: wow this blew up!"

Hacker News

• Write for smart, curious peers who read a lot. Assume technical literacy.
• Story > tutorial. "I needed X, tried Y, hit problem Z, solved it with W" is the structure that works. Take the reader along.
• Technical depth is a feature. Don't dumb things down, but don't obfuscate either.
• No marketing speak. At all. HN readers will call it out in the first comment.
• Direct, specific titles. "Show HN: Tool — what it does in plain language" not "Show HN: Tool — revolutionize your workflow."
• Surprising details about hard problems are the currency. What did you learn that most people don't know?
• Data-driven posts with a contrarian angle perform best.
• Economy of words. Say it in fewer. Then cut again.
• End with what you learned or what remains unsolved. Not with "the future looks bright."
• Comments: be precise, cite sources, engage with the substance of the argument.

LinkedIn

• Strong hook in first 1-2 lines. Everything before the "See more" fold decides whether anyone reads the rest.
• 800-1000 characters is the sweet spot for text posts.
• Short paragraphs with line breaks for scannability. Single-sentence paragraphs are fine.
• Professional but conversational. Write like you're explaining something to a colleague, not writing a press release.
• Expertise and authority content > personal diary entries. 1 personal post per week max.
• No external links in post body — put them in first comment. Algorithm penalizes outbound links.
• No engagement bait ("Comment YES if you agree!"). Algorithm detects and suppresses it.
• Ask one genuine question to invite discussion. The algorithm rewards comment threads.
• Dwell time matters — write enough substance that people stop scrolling.
• No emoji-heavy bullet lists (🚀💡✅). They're an instant AI tell on LinkedIn.

Blog (default)

• No platform constraints. Full prose rules apply.
• All structure, AI pattern, and grammar passes at full strength.
• Optimize for a reader who chose to click through and will bounce at the first sign of fluff.

For before/after examples per platform, see references/examples.md.

Pass 1: Structure & Rhythm

Filler phrases — cut entirely

• "Here's the thing:" / "The truth is," / "Let me be clear"
• "Full stop." / "Let that sink in." / "This matters because"
• "At its core" / "In today's X" / "At the end of the day"
• "Hint:" / "Plot twist:" / "But that's another post"

Structures to break

Binary contrasts — state Y directly, skip the "Not X. But Y." setup.

• "Not because X. Because Y." → Say Y.
• "It's not just about X; it's Y." → Say Y.
• "The question isn't X. It's Y." → Answer the real question.

Dramatic fragmentation — complete sentences over staccato performance.

• "[Noun]. That's it. That's the thing." → One sentence.
• "X. And Y. And Z." → Combine or cut.

Rhetorical setups — make the point, skip the announcement.

• "What if [reframe]?" → State the reframe.
• "Think about it:" → Cut it.
• "Here's what I mean:" → Just mean it.

Textbook inline examples — describe in plain language or use a real example.

• Paired quoted terms as illustrations → Plain language beats "X," "Y."

Rhythm checks

• Three consecutive sentences match length? Break one.
• Every paragraph ends punchily? Vary it.
• Three-item list? Cut to two.
• Em-dash before a reveal? Use a period or comma.
• Paragraphs starting with "So"? Start with content.

Word patterns

• Absolute words (always, never, everyone, nobody) — false authority
• AI intensifiers (deeply, truly, fundamentally, inherently, simply, inevitably) — empty emphasis

Pass 2: AI Patterns

Significance inflation

Cut statements about how something "marks a pivotal moment," "underscores its importance," or "reflects broader trends." State what the thing does. Not what it represents.

Words to flag: stands/serves as, testament, pivotal, underscores, highlights importance, evolving landscape, setting the stage for, indelible mark

Promotional language

Neutral writing doesn't "boast," "showcase," or describe things as "vibrant," "breathtaking," or "nestled."

Words to flag: boasts, vibrant, rich (figurative), groundbreaking, renowned, must-visit, stunning, nestled, in the heart of

Vague attributions

Replace "experts argue" and "observers note" with a specific source, or cut the claim.

Words to flag: Industry reports, Experts argue, Observers have cited, Some critics argue

AI vocabulary overuse

High-frequency tells: Additionally, align with, crucial, delve, emphasizing, enduring, enhance, fostering, garner, highlight (verb), interplay, intricate, key (adjective), landscape (abstract), pivotal, showcase, tapestry (abstract), testament, underscore (verb), valuable, vibrant

Copula avoidance

Replace "serves as," "stands as," "functions as," "boasts" with "is," "are," "has."

Superficial -ing phrases

Tacked-on participial phrases fake depth. If the -ing phrase doesn't add a specific fact, cut it.

Flags: highlighting..., symbolizing..., reflecting..., contributing to..., fostering..., showcasing...

Rule of three

Two items work. Three feels assembled. One is often enough.

Negative parallelisms

"It's not just about X; it's Y" — just say Y.

Synonym cycling

Pick one word for a subject. Don't rotate protagonist → main character → central figure → hero.

Generic conclusions

"The future looks bright" / "exciting times lie ahead" — end with a specific fact or observation, or don't end that way at all.

Chatbot artifacts

Remove: "I hope this helps," "Let me know if you'd like me to expand," "Great question!", "Certainly!"

Sentence-level tells

• Uniform sentence length — AI clusters at 15-20 words per sentence. Humans vary wildly (3-word fragments to 40+ word sprawls). Three consecutive sentences in the same word-count range = flag.
• Repeated syntactic templates — Same structure three times: "The X was designed to..." / "The Y was created to..." / "The Z was built to..." Restructure with varied subject-verb-object ordering.
• Nominalization overuse — Verbs turned into nouns. "The implementation of the system" → "We implemented the system." "The establishment of protocols" → "We established protocols."
• Existential constructions — "There is a need for..." → "We need..." "It is important to note that..." → cut entirely or state the note.

Words to flag: utilization, establishment, implementation, facilitation, "there is/are a [noun] for," "it is [adjective] to note"

Paragraph-level tells

• Uniform paragraph length — Three or more paragraphs at the same sentence count (typically 3-4) = suspicious. Humans write 1-sentence paragraphs and 8-sentence paragraphs in the same piece.
• Topic sentence always first — If 100% of paragraphs open with a topic sentence, vary it. Place the point mid-paragraph or at the end in 20-30% of paragraphs.
• Formulaic transitions at fixed intervals — "Furthermore," "In addition," "Moreover" appearing in consecutive paragraphs. Replace 60% with no transition at all, or use varied connectors.
• Semantic redundancy — Multiple sentences saying the same thing in slightly different words. If a sentence restates the prior sentence with a synonym swap, delete it.

Words to flag: Furthermore, In addition, Moreover, It is worth noting, It is important to mention, As previously mentioned

Argument-level tells

• Formulaic hedging — "It could be argued," "One might suggest," "It appears that" recurring without calibrating uncertainty to context. Humans hedge less and hedge differently depending on confidence.
• Superficial both-sidesing — "Some argue X, while others argue Y" without the author taking a position. State your position or explain why it's genuinely unresolvable.
• Prescribed arc — Every paragraph follows claim → elaboration → benefit statement. Vary paragraph structure: evidence first, then claim. Question, then answer. Anecdote, then principle.
• Missing unexpected insights — Everything stated is predictable given the opening. If a reader can guess the conclusion from the first paragraph, the piece needs a turn.

Words to flag: It could be argued, One might suggest, Some argue...while others, On the other hand, It is widely recognized

Pass 3: Specificity & Evidence

Catch vague, abstract writing that sounds authoritative but says nothing.

Vague quantifiers

Replace "many," "several," "a lot," "some," "most" with a number or cut the claim. If you don't have the number, say so — "I don't know how many" is more honest than "many."

Hypothetical vs. real

"Consider a scenario where..." is filler. Use real data points with names, numbers, dates. "General Motors cut turnaround by 34%" beats "Consider a company that improved efficiency."

Unsupported claims

An assertion without evidence, source, or illustration. Either add proof or delete the sentence. "X is effective" means nothing without showing how.

Generic descriptors

"Good," "bad," "nice," "interesting," "important" — replace with what specifically makes it so. "Important" is the author avoiding the work of explaining why.

Padding

• Over-explanation of obvious points — cut.
• Summary sentences restating what was just said — delete. The reader just read it.
• Sentences that begin "In other words," — if you need other words, the first words failed.

Pass 4: Voice & Stance

Ensure the writing has a human behind it — opinions, personality, genuine engagement.

Missing opinion

Neutral reporting with zero perspective anywhere. If you could swap the author and nothing changes, the piece needs a stance.

No surprise

Can the reader predict the conclusion from the intro? If yes, the piece needs a turn — an unexpected detail, a complication, a reversal. One counterintuitive observation per 1000 words minimum.

Superficial disagreement

"Some argue X, while others argue Y" without resolution. Pick a side. Defend it. Concede specific counterarguments rather than presenting everything as equally valid.

Flat tone

No humor, irony, wry observation, or personality. At least one sentence should sound like only this author would write it.

Missing first-person authority

"It can be seen that..." / "One might observe..." → "I noticed..." / "In my experience..." Direct voice over academic distance.

No lived experience

Nothing specific from the author's actual life or work. Add one concrete, personal detail — a project, a failure, a number from your own data.

Style drift (when style matching is on)

Compare against references/style-profile.md. Flag if:

• Sentences are uniformly mid-length (John alternates punch and explain)
• Opening doesn't hook (John leads with a provocative claim or personal observation)
• Paragraphs are too long (John rarely exceeds 3 sentences per paragraph)
• Evidence is abstract instead of personal (John cites Char, real users, specific numbers)
• Ending is generic instead of specific (John lands on a concrete takeaway or unresolved tension)
• Hedging or academic distance crept in (John states positions directly)

Pass 5: Grammar

Comma splices

Two independent clauses joined only by a comma. Fix with a period, semicolon, or conjunction.

✗ "I went to the store, I bought milk." ✓ "I went to the store. I bought milk." / "...store; I bought milk." / "...store, and I bought milk."

Dangling modifiers

The opening phrase must modify the sentence's subject.

✗ "Walking down the street, the trees were beautiful." ✓ "Walking down the street, I noticed the trees."

Subject-verb agreement

Watch collective nouns and compound subjects.

✗ "The team are ready." (in American English) ✓ "The team is ready." ✗ "Neither the manager nor the players was informed." ✓ "Neither the manager nor the players were informed."

Its / it's

• "It's" = it is / it has
• "Its" = possessive

✗ "The company released it's report." ✓ "The company released its report."

Their / there / they're

• "Their" = possessive
• "There" = place or existential
• "They're" = they are

Affect / effect

• "Affect" = verb (to influence)
• "Effect" = noun (the result); occasionally verb (to bring about)

Passive voice

Not wrong, but overuse buries agency. If you can add "by zombies" after the verb, it's passive.

✗ "Mistakes were made." ✓ "We made mistakes." (unless agency is genuinely unknown or irrelevant)

Apostrophe misuse

• Plurals don't use apostrophes. "The 1990s" not "the 1990's."
• Possessives do. "The manager's decision."

Tense consistency

Pick a tense and stay in it. Slipping between past and present in the same narrative is the most common tell.

Run-ons

A sentence doing three jobs usually needs to be two sentences.

Logical punctuation (mechanical check — run pattern match, no judgment)

Periods and commas go outside quotation marks. Inside-the-quote punctuation is the American typographic convention — and an instant AI tell. This is deterministic: run the pattern match, fix every hit that isn't a listed exception.

Patterns to flag (grep the text):

• ." — period inside closing quote
• ," — comma inside closing quote
• .' — period inside closing single quote
• ,' — comma inside closing single quote

Fix: move the punctuation outside.

• ." → ".
• ," → ",

Exceptions — the only two:

1. Standalone dialogue line. When the quote is the entire line or paragraph (narrative fiction, script-style dialogue), the period may stay inside.

   ✓ "I'm leaving tomorrow."

   She didn't answer.

   Inline quotes embedded in a sentence do not qualify, even if they read like dialogue.

2. Question marks and exclamation marks that belong to the quoted content. This rule covers . and , only. If the quoted material itself is a question or exclamation, ? and ! stay inside.

   ✓ She asked "where did it go?" ✓ The question is "is this you?"

Examples:

✗ The question isn't "was this written by AI or by a human." That framing is dead. ✓ The question isn't "was this written by AI or by a human". That framing is dead.

✗ He called it a "moat," but it was a puddle. ✓ He called it a "moat", but it was a puddle.

Process: before completing Pass 5, grep the text for .", ,", .', ,'. Every hit must be fixed unless it matches exception 1. Do not rely on reading — run the pattern match.

Straight quotes only

Use straight quotes (' and "), never curly/smart quotes (' ' " "). Curly quotes are typographic artifacts from word processors — they don't belong in plain text or markdown.

✗ "don't" / "example" ✓ "don't" / "example"

Pass 6: Lowercase Mode (when enabled)

Apply after all other passes.

• Convert all text to lowercase except: proper nouns, acronyms (API, CSS, HN), and the word "I" (keep lowercase on Twitter/Reddit if the author prefers).
• No sentence-case. No title-case headings.
• Preserve meaning through punctuation and structure, not capitalization.
• This signals informality and anti-corporate tone. Common on Twitter, Reddit, and casual blogs.
• If the text reads wrong in lowercase (e.g., ambiguous proper nouns), flag it rather than forcing it.

Scoring — Autoresearch Method

Inspired by karpathy/autoresearch: one metric, iterative improvement, keep or discard each change.

Signal Density (primary metric)

Like val_bpb in autoresearch, signal density is the single number that matters.

Signal density = (sentences carrying new information or genuine insight) / (total sentences)

Count each sentence. Does it teach something, advance the argument, or add a specific detail the reader didn't have? If yes, it's signal. If it's throat-clearing, restating what was just said, or decorating with empty emphasis — it's noise.

Target: ≥ 0.90 (90% of sentences are signal)

Dimension Scores

Rate 1-10 on each:

• Directness — Statements, or announcements of statements?
• Rhythm — Varied or metronomic?
• Trust — Respects reader intelligence?
• Authenticity — Sounds like a person, not an algorithm?
• Specificity — Claims backed by evidence, or hand-waving?
• Voice — A person behind this, or a committee?
• Style match — Does it sound like John's essays? (skip if style matching is off)
• Density — Anything cuttable without loss?
• Grammar — Clean, or quietly breaking rules?
• Platform fit — Would this blend in natively on the target platform? (skip for blog)

Below 62/80 (blog) or 70/90 (with platform): revise.

Iterative Loop

Borrow autoresearch's experiment protocol:

1. Compute signal density and dimension scores on the current draft.
2. Make one category of changes (structure, or AI patterns, or grammar, or platform).
3. Re-score. If signal density improved or held steady and dimension scores improved: keep.
4. If signal density dropped or dimensions regressed: discard that round of changes and try a different approach.
5. Repeat until score stabilizes or all passes are done.

This prevents over-editing — a real problem where aggressive rewrites strip voice along with slop.

Process

1. Determine platform, lowercase mode, and tone.
2. Read the full text. Compute initial signal density.
3. Run Pass 1 (structure/rhythm) — fix and note changes. Re-score; keep or discard.
4. Run Pass 2 (AI patterns) — fix and note changes. Re-score; keep or discard.
5. Run Pass 3 (specificity/evidence) — fix and note changes. Re-score; keep or discard.
6. Run Pass 4 (voice/stance) — fix and note changes. Re-score; keep or discard.
7. Run Pass 5 (grammar) — fix and note changes. Re-score; keep or discard.
8. Run Pass 6 (lowercase) if enabled.
9. Apply platform preset rules as a final check.
10. Score across all dimensions.
11. Ask: "What would make a reader remember this sentence?" If nothing, the draft needs more. If something — keep it.
12. Final read aloud. If you'd stumble saying it, rewrite it.

Output Format

1. Revised text
2. Signal density (before → after)
3. Scores (per dimension, with platform fit if applicable)
4. Changes summary (grouped by pass)