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.
Detect patterns characteristic of AI-generated text in developer artifacts. These patterns reduce trust, add noise, and obscure meaning.
| 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 |
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> |
These patterns are strong indicators of AI-generated text:
Flag when 2+ appear together or pattern is repeated:
Mention but don't flag as issues:
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 |
beagle-core:review-verification-protocolBefore reporting any finding:
beagle-core:llm-artifacts-detectionCode-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).beagle/llm-artifacts-review.json exists, skip findings already captured thereReport each finding as:
[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