<aside>
🧠 Introduction
Most people who try to "humanize" an article do the same thing. They paste the whole draft into a humanizer, paste the result into a detector, see a red score, and try again. Same draft, same tool, same red score.
The problem was never that humanizers don't work. Pangram reads your writing closely enough that one AI-sounding paragraph can drag the whole article down, and a 3,000-word draft has dozens of places for that paragraph to hide.
Here's the shift. You stop treating the article as one piece and start working it like an assembly line. Clean the obvious; tell yourself first. Run the two skills. Cut the article into chunks. Test each chunk until it passes. Then test the seams between them.
This pack hands you that line, done. The flag list of patterns I kept cutting from flagged chunks, both Claude skills from my tests, and every prompt for the chunking loop and the final check.
Read time: 10 minutes. Setup time: about 15 minutes. Time to first payoff: one chunk of your own writing, passing Pangram, today.
</aside>
<aside>
Two weeks ago, I ran a 3,000-word newsletter through Pangram before sending it. It came back 94% AI.
Then I spent a week testing. The Humanizer skill barely moved a single paragraph. Adding the AntiAI skill helped, but my full draft still scored 71% AI. Every Claude-only run I tried on the full article came back above 40% AI.
What finally worked was boring: small chunks, one at a time, tested and retested, then a final check on the whole thing.
While I was doing that, I kept cutting the same things out of the chunks that failed. The same words. The same sentence shapes. The same tidy transitions. So I wrote them down.
Here's the honest part. Pangram doesn't publish a list of banned words. It's a trained model, and it judges the whole pattern, not one word at a time. So this list isn't a magic filter. It's the set of patterns that kept showing up in my flagged chunks and in well-documented signs of AI writing. Cut them first, and the tools have far less to fix.
One caveat I'll repeat inside: this fixes how your writing reads, not what it says. If the draft has no story, no opinion, and no real test behind it, a 100% human score won't make anyone want to read it.
</aside>
<aside>
✅ Before You Start - Quick Checklist
<aside>
1. The Pangram Flag List: The words, phrases, sentence structures, punctuation habits, and rhythm patterns I kept cutting from flagged chunks, each with a before and after.
2. The Humanizer Skill: Cleans AI-sounding words and phrases sentence by sentence.
3. The AntiAI Skill: Changes the rhythm so the writing stops sounding like a model.
4. The Self-Edit Prompt: Checks any section against the Flag List before you touch a humanizer.
5. The Chunking Prompt: Splits your article into 300 to 600-word chunks, one idea each.
6. The 4-Step Loop: The exact StealthGPT and Pangram routine, plus a tracking table.
7. The Final Check Prompt: Smooths the seams between chunks so the full article passes too.
</aside>
<aside>
If you only post short updates and never check a detector, you probably don't need this. Short text is far easier to get through. This was built for long articles.
</aside>
<aside>
Step 1 - Duplicate this page: Hit the ••• menu top right → Duplicate. Now it's yours to edit.
Step 2 - Install both skills: Download the files from Sections 2 and 3. In Claude Code, put each one in its own folder inside ~/.claude/skills/ (for example ~/.claude/skills/humanizer/SKILL.md). On Claude.ai, zip each skill folder and upload it under Skills in your settings.
Step 3 - Self-edit with the Flag List: Section 4. Do this before any humanizer runs.
Step 4 - Run both skills: Sections 2 and 3, Humanizer first, then AntiAI.
Step 5 - Chunk the article: Section 5.
Step 6 - Run the loop: Section 6, one chunk at a time.
Step 7 - Run the final check: Section 7, then scan the full article.
🔰 New to this? You don't need to know how detectors work. You only need to be patient with the chunks that fail. That's a time problem, not a skill problem.
</aside>
<aside>
What this does: Shows you the patterns to cut before any tool touches your draft. None of these alone will get you flagged. Stacked together, they read like a model wrote the piece.
💡 Use this before humanizing, not after. A humanizer can only rewrite what you give it. Hand it a clean draft, and it has less to fix and fewer chances to add new tells.
</aside>
| Cut this | Use this instead |
|---|---|
| delve into | dig into, look at |
| crucial, pivotal, key (as an adjective) | important, or cut it |
| landscape (as in "the AI landscape") | name the actual thing: the tools, the market |
| showcase | show |
| underscore, highlight (as verbs) | shows, proves |
| testament | proof, or cut it |
| tapestry, vibrant, intricate | cut it, or give a specific detail |
| seamless, unlock, elevate | say what actually happens |
| foster, enhance | build, improve |
| additionally | also |
| robust, game-changer | name what makes it strong or what changed |
<aside>
Why it reads as AI: These words show up far more often in writing produced since ChatGPT launched, and they tend to travel together. One "crucial" means nothing. "Crucial," "landscape," and "showcase" in one paragraph is a pattern.
</aside>
| Cut this | Use this instead |
|---|---|
| "Let's dive in." / "Let's break this down." | Start with the first real point |
| "Here's the thing." / "Honestly?" | Say the thing |
| "It's important to note that..." | Just state it |
| "At its core..." / "The real question is..." | State the point plainly |
| "In today's fast-paced world..." | Cut the whole sentence |
| "Without further ado..." | Cut it |