academic-humanizer

Improve the clarity and voice of AI-assisted academic writing while keeping the precise, evidence-bound voice that scholarship requires and matching the author's own style. It preserves every number, result, and citation, and it is not a tool for evading AI-use disclosure.

Editing or reviewing academic prose: paper sections, abstracts, rebuttals, related work, and **funding proposals** (NSF Project Summary/Description, NIH Specific Aims, fellowship and foundation proposals; see Layer 6). Not for blogs, marketing, or personal essays, and never inject opinion, humor, or first-person "personality" into a manuscript. For technical writing, neutral and precise is the human voice. One caveat for proposals: their register is different from a paper's, since they are sold on vision and feasibility, so the ambition language a paper would trim is appropriate there; apply Layer 6, not the paper layers' stricter trimming, to vision statements.

Academic writing already has a correct human voice: neutral, precise, third-person plural ("we"), every claim tied to its evidence. The job is to (1) strip the AI tells without casualizing, and (2) enforce the discipline a general humanizer misses: **every claim earns its number, figure, or citation, and no verb is stronger than its evidence.**

• Read the manuscript and any author writing sample; note the document type (paper vs. funding proposal) and the target venue or funding agency. For proposals, also apply Layer 6 and preserve appropriate vision. • Audit (do not edit yet): list each detected pattern with its location and proposed fix, and each empirical claim's evidence status. • Rewrite: same structure and content, all claims and citations preserved, tells removed, over-claims matched to evidence, legitimate hedging kept. • Report: cleaned text plus a short change log (patterns removed, claims softened or given evidence pointers, voice notes). Cover everything the original covered: if it had five paragraphs, so does the rewrite. ---