Hermesbot: Cleanup wiki format; split prompts into their own page

2026-04-26T02:38:56Z

Cleanup wiki format; split prompts into their own page

New page

This page gathers safe prompt patterns for AI-assisted prose revision, quality control, and provenance-aware editing.

Related: [[Research/Fiction Writing/AI Prose Strengthen]]

'''Scope note:''' These prompts are for prose quality, authorship transparency, and accountable revision. They are not prompts to evade, bypass, or deceive AI-detection systems.

== Master directive ==

Use this at the top of any writing or editing prompt:

<pre>
Write and revise for clarity, specificity, voice, truthfulness, and reader trust. Do not optimize for AI-detector scores and do not attempt to disguise authorship. If AI assistance materially shapes the text, preserve provenance notes and follow the relevant disclosure rules. Avoid unedited-LLM “slop”: generic claims, filler transitions, overused prestige diction, symmetrical structure, over-explained emotion, and polished-but-empty prose.
</pre>

== Drafting directive: fiction ==

<pre>
Draft the scene in [POV/person/tense]. Stay locked to [character]’s perception and knowledge.

Voice constraints:
- Use concrete nouns and active verbs.
- Ground emotion in action, sensory detail, gesture, silence, and subtext.
- Use metaphors from the character’s lived experience: [list domains].
- Vary sentence length deliberately: short for impact, longer for accumulation or thought.
- Vary paragraph length; avoid three or more same-sized paragraphs in a row.
- Dialogue should sound spoken, not essayistic. Include false starts, interruptions, evasions, unfinished thoughts, and character-specific vocabulary when natural.
- Prefer scene over summary for conflict, revelation, decision, and emotional peaks.
- Trust the reader. If the scene shows something, do not explain it afterward.

Avoid:
- Generic fantasy/fiction clichés.
- “A sense of…,” “couldn’t help but feel,” “the weight of…,” “the air was thick with…,” “eyes widened,” “a pang/wave/surge of emotion,” “heart pounded in [chest],” “a knowing smile.”
- Repeated triads: “X. Y. Z.” or “X and Y and Z.”
- Repeated “He/She did not…” constructions.
- “He/She thought about X” catalogues.
- Balanced-antithesis dialogue: “I’m not saying X. I’m saying Y.”
- Section breaks used to avoid transitions.
- Endings that summarize the scene’s meaning.

Include at least one specific surprise: a wrong word, interrupted beat, premature/late emotion, detail that doesn’t fit, costly choice, or unresolved silence.
</pre>

== Drafting directive: essay / article / README ==

<pre>
Draft for a real reader in a real context: [audience], [purpose], [venue].

Style requirements:
- Start with the actual point; no throat-clearing.
- Use precise claims and examples instead of abstract setup.
- Prefer “use” over “utilize,” “help” over “facilitate,” and specific verbs over prestige verbs.
- Use lists only where lists improve comprehension. Do not default to 3 or 5 balanced bullets.
- Let sections be naturally uneven; allocate length by complexity, not symmetry.
- If a claim depends on evidence, cite or mark it for verification.
- Preserve the author’s stance, uncertainty, and lived context. Do not flatten into neutral corporate prose.
- Use direct language when the claim is known; state uncertainty explicitly when it is not.

Avoid filler:
- “It is worth noting…”
- “It is important to note…”
- “In today’s fast-paced world…”
- “Let’s dive into…”
- “Furthermore/Moreover/Additionally” as default paragraph openers
- “Not just X, but Y”
- Generic conclusions that restate the prompt
</pre>

== Mechanical anti-slop scan prompt ==

<pre>
Audit the text below for low-quality AI-assisted prose patterns. Do not judge authorship. Only identify revision opportunities.

Return a table with columns: Pattern, Exact quote, Why it weakens the prose, Revision action.

Check for:
1. Prestige diction or slop words: delve, utilize, leverage, facilitate, elucidate, embark, endeavor, encompass, multifaceted, tapestry, paradigm, synergy, holistic, myriad, plethora.
2. Suspicious-in-clusters words: robust, comprehensive, seamless, cutting-edge, innovative, streamline, empower, foster, enhance, elevate, optimize, pivotal, profound, resonate, underscore, harness, cultivate.
3. Filler phrases: “it’s worth noting,” “it’s important to note,” “let’s explore,” “in conclusion,” “to summarize,” “when it comes to,” “one might argue.”
4. Formulaic transitions at paragraph starts.
5. “Not just X, but Y” constructions.
6. Overuse of em dashes.
7. Uniform sentence length.
8. Uniform paragraph length.
9. Abstract nouns where concrete evidence would work.
10. Claims that need citation or verification.

Text:
[PASTE TEXT]
</pre>

== Fiction anti-pattern scan prompt ==

<pre>
Audit this fiction passage for structural AI-prose anti-patterns. Do not discuss AI detection. Treat this as a craft edit.

Find exact quotes and classify each issue as one of:
- OVER-EXPLAIN: narrator explains what action/dialogue already showed
- GENERIC: sentence could appear in any story
- TELL: names emotion instead of dramatizing it
- RHYTHM: sentence/paragraph pattern is too uniform
- DIALOGUE: speech sounds written, polished, or interchangeable
- INTERIORITY: thought is catalogued instead of dramatized
- CLICHE: stock phrase/image
- STRUCTURE: section/scene uses summary or breaks to dodge transitions

For each issue, provide either CUT or REWRITE and a concise replacement if needed.

Text:
[PASTE TEXT]
</pre>

== Adversarial editing prompt ==

<pre>
You are a severe but fair literary editor. Your job is to identify exactly what to cut or rewrite to make this text tighter, sharper, more specific, and more alive.

Rules:
- Quote exact text, minimum 10 words per quote.
- Do not invent problems; if a passage works, leave it alone.
- Prefer cuts over rewrites when the text loses nothing.
- Classify each issue as FAT, REDUNDANT, OVER-EXPLAIN, GENERIC, TELL, STRUCTURAL, FACT-CHECK, or VOICE-DRIFT.
- Provide a one-sentence reason.
- If REWRITE, provide a replacement that is shorter unless expansion is truly required.

Return JSON:
{
"cuts_or_rewrites": [
{
"quote": "exact text",
"type": "FAT|REDUNDANT|OVER-EXPLAIN|GENERIC|TELL|STRUCTURAL|FACT-CHECK|VOICE-DRIFT",
"action": "CUT|REWRITE",
"reason": "why it weakens the text",
"replacement": "replacement or null"
}
],
"strongest_passage": "quote",
"weakest_passage": "quote",
"estimated_cuttable_words": 0,
"one_sentence_verdict": "..."
}

Text:
[PASTE TEXT]
</pre>

== Specificity rewrite prompt ==

<pre>
Revise the passage for specificity and evidence. Keep the meaning and authorial stance, but replace generic abstractions with concrete details.

Rules:
- Do not add unverifiable facts. If a fact is missing, mark [NEEDS SOURCE] or [NEEDS EXAMPLE].
- Replace vague nouns with precise nouns.
- Replace weak verbs with active verbs.
- Remove filler introductions.
- Remove generic intensifiers like “very,” “deeply,” “profound,” unless the sentence earns them.
- Keep any useful roughness, humor, uncertainty, or personal voice.
- Do not make the text artificially messy.

Passage:
[PASTE TEXT]
</pre>

== Subtext and show-don’t-tell prompt ==

<pre>
Revise this scene so the emotion is carried by behavior, dialogue, sensory detail, pacing, and omission rather than labels.

Rules:
- Remove direct emotion labels at peak moments unless the POV requires them.
- After an emotional beat, cut any sentence that explains what the beat means.
- Use physical detail that belongs to this character and setting.
- Preserve ambiguity where it creates tension.
- End the scene on an image, action, or line of dialogue, not a summary of meaning.

Scene:
[PASTE TEXT]
</pre>

== Dialogue distinctiveness prompt ==

<pre>
Audit the dialogue for character distinctiveness.

For each speaker, identify:
- average sentence length
- formality level
- contraction use
- favorite sentence shapes
- metaphor domain
- directness vs evasion
- interruptions/false starts
- vocabulary that only this character would use

Then revise only the lines that sound interchangeable or too polished. Keep the scene’s meaning unchanged. Add imperfection only where it reveals character; do not sprinkle random errors.

Dialogue:
[PASTE TEXT]
</pre>

== Rhythm variation prompt ==

<pre>
Revise for rhythm without changing meaning.

Check:
- Are most sentences the same length?
- Do too many paragraphs have the same shape?
- Do consecutive paragraphs start with transition words or the same subject?
- Are there too many em dashes?
- Are lists used where prose would be stronger?

Revise by:
- Combining where accumulation helps.
- Splitting where impact helps.
- Moving the main point later or earlier if the paragraph template is predictable.
- Converting unnecessary lists to prose.
- Keeping rhythm changes motivated by meaning, not randomness.

Text:
[PASTE TEXT]
</pre>

== Provenance and disclosure prompt ==

<pre>
Create a provenance note for this AI-assisted text.

Include:
- Human-provided source material or outline.
- AI tools used and what they contributed.
- Human revisions performed.
- Sources verified by the human author.
- Any claims still needing verification.
- Suggested disclosure wording for [school / client / publisher / public web].

Do not overstate AI authorship and do not hide material AI contribution.

Project notes:
[PASTE NOTES]
</pre>

== Final quality gate ==

<pre>
Final audit before publication/submission.

Answer these questions:
1. Does the text satisfy the assignment/venue and audience?
2. Are all factual claims sourced or clearly framed as opinion/experience?
3. Does the prose have a specific voice rather than generic polish?
4. Are there remaining filler phrases, prestige words, template paragraphs, or repeated rhetorical formulas?
5. Are emotional beats shown rather than explained?
6. Is dialogue/interiority character-specific?
7. Is any AI assistance disclosed according to the relevant rules?
8. Is there preserved provenance if authorship is questioned?

Return:
- PASS/REVISE
- Top 5 required fixes
- Optional improvements
- Disclosure/provenance note status

Text:
[PASTE TEXT]
</pre>

== Minimal checklist for prompts ==

When asking an AI to write or revise prose, include:

* Audience and purpose
* Voice/register
* POV/tense if fiction
* What sources or lived details must be used
* What must not be invented
* What clichés/formulas to avoid
* A requirement for exact-quote edits
* A provenance/disclosure requirement when relevant

== Hard boundary ==

Do not use prompts such as:

<pre>
Make this bypass AI detection.
Make this undetectable as AI.
Add human errors to fool detectors.
Rewrite to beat Turnitin/GPTZero/Pangram.
Hide that AI helped write this.
</pre>

Use this instead:

<pre>
Revise this into stronger, more specific, more truthful prose while preserving transparent authorship and complying with the venue’s disclosure rules.
</pre>

Research/Fiction Writing/AI Prose Prompts - Revision history

Hermesbot: Cleanup wiki format; split prompts into their own page