Publish: How to Organize Meeting Notes So You Can Actually Find Them Later#4164
Publish: How to Organize Meeting Notes So You Can Actually Find Them Later#4164harshikaalagh-netizen wants to merge 12 commits intomainfrom
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for hyprnote-storybook canceled.
|
✅ Deploy Preview for hyprnote ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
Blog Post Review: Humanizer + Stop-SlopFile: Humanizer Check (24 AI writing patterns)Score: 43/50 (PASS)
Overall this is clean writing that avoids 20 of 24 major AI patterns. Strong voice, good specificity, natural flow. Issues found are minor refinements, not emergency repairs. High SeverityNone Medium Severity
Low Severity
Patterns not found (good): No promotional language, no significance inflation, no superficial -ing phrases, no vague attributions, no "challenges and future prospects" sections, no copula avoidance, no false ranges, no em dash overuse, no emoji decorations, no collaborative artifacts, no knowledge-cutoff disclaimers, no sycophantic tone, no generic positive conclusions, no curly quotes. Stop-Slop Check (phrases, structures, rhythm)Score: 34/50 (NEEDS REVISION — threshold is 35)
The content is solid but has enough performative AI patterns to feel slightly manufactured. Main issues: throat-clearing openers, formulaic paragraph endings, and cuttable phrases throughout. Banned Phrases
Structural Clichés
Rhythm Patterns
Key Improvements Needed
SummaryThe humanizer check passes (43/50) — the writing avoids most classic AI tells and has genuine voice. The stop-slop check narrowly fails (34/50, threshold 35) — there are enough throat-clearing phrases, formulaic endings, and cuttable words to warrant a revision pass. The content and structure are strong; the issues are surface-level patterns that can be cleaned up without changing the article's substance. |
Co-Authored-By: unknown <>
Co-Authored-By: unknown <>
…in.ai/proxy/github.com/fastrepl/char into blog/organize-meeting-notes
Grammar Check ResultsReviewed 1 article. 7 Ways to Organize Meeting Notes📄 The article is well-written with strong clarity and engaging tone. The main issues are formatting inconsistencies in the bold markdown syntax for the 'Best for' labels and one minor hyphenation error. All substantive content is clear, grammatically sound, and appropriately styled. The piece effectively communicates practical information in an accessible way. Found 8 issues: 🔤 SpellingLine 12
Hyphenated compound verbs should not have a space; 're-decide' should be 'redecide' 📋 Suggested fix (click to expand)🔹 Punctuation PlacementLine 30
Punctuation placement: asterisks for bold should wrap the entire phrase including the colon; closing period/punctuation should be outside the bold markers 📋 Suggested fix (click to expand)Line 44
Punctuation placement: asterisks for bold should wrap the entire phrase including the colon; closing punctuation should be outside the bold markers 📋 Suggested fix (click to expand)Line 52
Punctuation placement: asterisks for bold should wrap the entire phrase including the colon; closing punctuation should be outside the bold markers 📋 Suggested fix (click to expand)Line 62
Punctuation placement: asterisks for bold should wrap the entire phrase including the colon; closing punctuation should be outside the bold markers 📋 Suggested fix (click to expand)Line 72
Punctuation placement: asterisks for bold should wrap the entire phrase including the colon; closing punctuation should be outside the bold markers 📋 Suggested fix (click to expand)Line 82
Punctuation placement: asterisks for bold should wrap the entire phrase including the colon; closing punctuation should be outside the bold markers 📋 Suggested fix (click to expand)Line 92
Punctuation placement: asterisks for bold should wrap the entire phrase including the colon; closing punctuation should be outside the bold markers 📋 Suggested fix (click to expand)Powered by Claude Haiku 4.5 AI Slop Check ResultsReviewed 1 article for AI writing patterns. 7 Ways to Organize Meeting Notes
Score: 23/50 (NEEDS REVISION)
This blog post exhibits widespread AI writing patterns despite covering practical, technical subject matter. The dominant issues are: (1) Binary antithesis framing—negating one approach before affirming another ('You're not writing your notes here. You're building an index'; 'You're not committing to Char. You're just keeping your options open'); (2) Staccato fragment lists used for rhetorical punch ('No manual filing, no folder decisions, no naming conventions. Just show up and the notes are there'); (3) Metronomic rhythm with parallel sentence structures, especially in recommendation sections and lists; (4) Conversational announcements that preview content rather than state it ('Here's every practical system...', 'Here's the shortcut:', 'Here's the thing:'); (5) Marketing framing that reads like sales copy ('The system that matches your brain is the one you'll actually use'; 'Char is worth trying first for exactly that reason'); (6) Significance inflation through empty emphasis ('the real problem', 'the core insight that matters', 'That's not a minor difference'); (7) Em-dash reframes for dramatic effect ('land you own and land you're renting'; 'A CRM organizes your notes in a way nothing else does: by person, not by date'). The text treats every tool comparison as a problem-solution pitch rather than a neutral technical analysis. Sentences frequently end with punchy one-liners designed to land, and rhetorical questions are immediately answered, creating artificial cadence. The writing respects the reader's intelligence in places but frequently adopts a motivational-speaker tone that undermines credibility. Major rewrites needed in lines 46, 86, 94, and 96 to remove the highest-confidence AI patterns. Found 37 issues (4 high, 18 medium, 15 low) HIGH — Obvious AI TellLine 56 —
Binary antithesis with negation setup ('You're not writing...You're building...') which is a textbook AI rhetorical move. Announces the distinction rather than letting the structure speak for itself. Suggested rewriteLine 96 —
Verbose significance inflation with 'The core insight that matters here is...' (empty emphasis and announcement). Metronomic rhythm with staccato fragments in sequence ('Capture...Then process...Processing means...'). The phrase 'are two separate activities' is academic hedging. Binary antithesis structure ('treating them as the same thing is where most systems fall apart'). Suggested rewriteLine 104 —
Binary antithesis structure with negation-then-affirmation ('That's not a minor difference...It's the difference...'). Em-dash reframe for drama ('land you own and land you're renting'). Metaphor is marketing framing, not technical description. Metronomic rhythm with paired if-then clauses. Suggested rewriteLine 106 —
Metronomic rhythm with parallel imperatives ('Record...get...drop...import...search'). Marketing testimonial framing ('Char is worth trying first'). Binary antithesis at the end ('You're not committing...You're just keeping...') which is a textbook AI rhetorical move. Anthropomorphization ('the files will work there'). Conversational tone that reads like a pitch rather than description. Significance inflation with 'Whatever you decide your system is six months from now'. Suggested rewriteMEDIUM — Likely AI PatternLine 16 —
Conversational announcement with throat-clearing ('Here's') and false intensity ('genuinely'). The sentence structure also announces what's coming rather than diving into the content. Suggested rewriteLine 22 —
Question-answer metronomic rhythm with predictable structure. Every rhetorical question is immediately answered in the next sentence. This creates artificial cadence rather than natural exposition. Also uses a conversational interrogative tone ("Ask yourself this first") to announce thinking rather than just sharing it. Suggested rewriteLine 26 —
Listicle heading formula with marketing framing ('Methods That Work'). The subtext is 'these are proven' which is filler reassurance rather than descriptive labeling. Suggested rewriteLine 32 —
Staccato fragment list ('No manual filing, no folder decisions, no naming conventions. Just show up and the notes are there') uses fragments for rhetorical emphasis. Also contains metronomic rhythm with three parallel negations followed by a punchy affirm. Anthropomorphizes the tool with 'just show up and the notes are there' (tool seems to act autonomously). Suggested rewriteLine 36 —
Theatrical setup with 'discover too late' (significance inflation) and staccato fragments ('Switch tools and you're hoping their export works. Stop paying and your archive is at their mercy.') Ends with a punchy one-liner for emphasis ('That lock-in is real') that reads like a marketing callback. Suggested rewriteLine 38 —
Staccato fragments with anaphoric negation ('Nothing in the cloud by default. No vendor holding your meeting history.') followed by a short positive assertion. Also contains marketing framing ('The files are yours to take anywhere') that positions ownership as a feature narrative rather than just stating the technical fact. Suggested rewriteLine 46 —
Conversational tone ('they're just there') with anthropomorphization (files 'drop straight in' as if autonomous) and false binary antithesis at the end ('owning vs. renting') that reads like a sales pitch. Also contains metronomic rhythm with two short parallel examples ('Open your Char notes folder...') followed by a summary statement. Suggested rewriteLine 48 —
Anthropomorphization throughout ('treats notes like a web', 'pushes you toward'). The phrase 'it matters' is empty throat-clearing. Overuse of 'and' creates metronomic cadence. The phrase 'over time you build something that resembles a personal wiki of your working life' is significance inflation with flowery language that reads like testimonial framing. Suggested rewriteLine 58 —
Metronomic rhythm with parallel structure (Filter...Filter...) followed by a punchy summary statement. Empty significance inflation ('That bird's-eye view is very hard to get') rather than just stating the utility. Suggested rewriteLine 64 —
Em-dash reframe for drama ('in a way nothing else does: by person, not by date'). Marketing framing and anthropomorphization ('That history lives on the contact') make it read like a product pitch rather than description. Metronomic rhythm with parallel questions. Suggested rewriteLine 68 —
Empty significance inflation ('The real problem') and metronomic rhythm with parallel short sentences. Reads like a problem-solution pitch. The phrase 'The workflow that actually works' is conversational and announcements a solution rather than stating it. Suggested rewriteLine 74 —
Binary negation setup ('not the same thing...even though...blurry') that announces a distinction before explaining it. Reads like a contrarian point being set up. Suggested rewriteLine 76 —
Metronomic rhythm with parallel sentence structure. Significance inflation with 'living document' jargon. Staccato fragments ('Decisions, processes, product decisions') used for emphasis. The distinction between notes and wiki is presented as antithesis rather than shown through example. Suggested rewriteLine 78 —
Metronomic rhythm with paired if-then sentences. Marketing framing with 'the right long-term answer'. Conversational tone ('If you're being honest') reads like an advertisement's candor. The phrase 'failure mode' is technical jargon used for rhetorical effect. Significance inflation with 'The failure mode is...' Suggested rewriteLine 86 —
Metronomic rhythm with staccato sentences of similar length. Each statement gets its own line for artificial emphasis. 'It works' is a punchy landing that feels manufactured. The phrase 'The search in both is good now' (containing 'now' as empty emphasis) sounds like marketing copy with a timeline justification. Suggested rewriteLine 88 —
Metronomic rhythm with parallel structure (problem-then-reframe). Marketing framing with 'there's a real argument for' (empty hedging). Anthropomorphization ('one place you already live in'). Em-dash logic with binary contrast (downside vs. upside). Suggested rewriteLine 94 —
Binary antithesis with negation ('not for where...for how...') that announces a distinction. Staccato fragment list opening without a complete introduction. Suggested rewriteLine 102 —
Conversational announcement ('Here's the shortcut:') that previews advice rather than stating it directly. False problem ('Seven options is a lot') to justify the following shortcut. Reads like marketing copy with a 'pro tip' structure. Suggested rewriteLOW — Subtle but SuspiciousLine 20 —
Metronomic rhythm: two sentences with parallel structure (subject-verb-object with outcome). The rhythm feels constructed for impact rather than flowing naturally. Suggested rewriteLine 24 —
Significance inflation with clichéd wisdom structure. Reads like a tagline or motivational close rather than a practical observation. The phrase 'matches your brain' is anthropomorphized and vague. Suggested rewriteLine 30 —
Vague marketing framing ('without thinking about it'). The description positions the tool as solving a feeling rather than describing what it does. Suggested rewriteLine 34 —
Significance inflation ('the right starting point') and marketing framing ('just want the problem solved'). Reads like a recommendation narrative rather than a straightforward statement. Suggested rewriteLine 40 —
Conversational announcement / transition phrase that explicitly previews what's coming. Should just move to the next section header. Suggested rewriteLine 44 —
Vague marketing framing ('layer a proper personal knowledge system') instead of concrete description. Suggested rewriteLine 52 —
Unnecessarily complex description ('running parallel workstreams who need to spot patterns') instead of simple statement. Marketing jargon ('workstreams', 'spot patterns'). Suggested rewriteLine 54 —
Conversational announcement with empty emphasis ('really well'). Previews what's coming instead of showing it. Suggested rewriteLine 62 —
Abstract marketing framing ('most important context is about people over time rather than projects') instead of concrete description of use cases. Suggested rewriteLine 72 —
Sarcastic aside ('Fewer of them exist than people assume') that reads as snide commentary rather than straightforward description. Uses significance inflation to make a simple point. Suggested rewriteLine 82 —
Awkward phrasing ('want zero setup cost') that reads like marketing copy positioning rather than straightforward description. Suggested rewriteLine 84 —
Conversational tone with false self-deprecation ('Stupid simple, right?') that sounds like a personality tic rather than prose. The word 'genuinely' is a filler intensifier. The rhetorical question doesn't advance information. Suggested rewriteLine 92 —
Verbose jargon-heavy description that rephrases a simple problem. The colon structure reads like an announcement ('the problem: X') rather than direct description. Suggested rewriteLine 98 —
Redundant statement. Metronomic rhythm with parallel negations. The second sentence is a clichéd conclusion packaged as wisdom. Reads like a motivational wrap-up. Suggested rewriteLine 100 —
Verbose heading that announces what the section will do rather than describing content clearly. The phrase 'How to Pick' is instructional listicle framing. Suggested rewritePowered by Claude Haiku 4.5 with stop-slop rules |
Blog Post Review: Humanizer + Stop-SlopFile: Humanizer Check (24 AI writing patterns)Score: 40/50 (PASS)
The writing avoids 20+ of 24 major AI patterns. Strong opening scenario, good specificity throughout, and genuine voice. Issues found are minor refinements. High SeverityNone Medium Severity
Low Severity
Patterns not found (good): No promotional inflation, no significance language, no superficial -ing phrases, no vague attributions, no "challenges and future prospects" sections, no copula avoidance ("serves as"), no false ranges, no em dash overuse, no emoji decoration, no collaborative artifacts, no knowledge-cutoff disclaimers, no sycophantic tone, no generic positive conclusions, no curly quotes, no boldface overuse, no inline-header vertical lists. Stop-Slop Check (phrases, structures, rhythm)Score: 30/50 (NEEDS REVISION — threshold is 35)
Content is solid but has enough performative patterns and metronomic rhythm to feel slightly manufactured. Banned Phrases
Structural Cliches
Rhythm Patterns
Combined Summary
What's working well: Strong opening scenario, good tool-specific details, avoids classic AI vocabulary and significance inflation, no em-dash abuse, genuine editorial voice. What needs attention: Throat-clearing phrases (7 instances), punchy one-liner paragraph endings (too metronomic), a few "the real X is" patterns, and some absolute qualifiers ("most people"). These are surface-level fixes that won't change the article's substance. Recommended next steps:
|
Blog Post Review: Humanizer + Stop-SlopFile: Humanizer Check (24 AI writing patterns)Score: 31/50 (NEEDS REVISION)
The writing has conversational moments but is undermined by promotional language (especially Char sections) and scattered AI tells. Good specificity with concrete tool examples, but voice falls into sales copy in places. Could cut ~20% without losing meaning. High Severity
Medium Severity
Low Severity
Patterns not found (good): No significance inflation (#1 major), no media coverage emphasis (#2), no superficial -ing analyses (#3), no "challenges and future prospects" sections (#6), no em dash overuse (#13), no boldface overuse (#14), no inline-header lists (#15), no title case issues (#16), no emojis (#17), no curly quotes (#18), no knowledge-cutoff disclaimers (#20 major), no excessive hedging (#23 major), no generic positive conclusions (#24). Stop-Slop Check (phrases, structures, rhythm)Score: 30/50 (NEEDS REVISION)
The content is solid but has enough performative AI patterns to feel manufactured. Main issues: throat-clearing phrases, formulaic paragraph endings, binary contrasts, and overuse of "actually" throughout. Banned Phrases
Structural Cliches
Rhythm Patterns
Key Improvements Needed
SummaryBoth checks flag the article for revision:
The article's content and structure are strong. The issues are surface-level writing patterns that can be cleaned up without changing substance. The biggest single improvement would be toning down the promotional language in Char-related sections and cutting filler/announcement phrases throughout. |
Blog Post Review: Humanizer + Stop-SlopFile: Humanizer Check (24 AI writing patterns)Score: 32/50 (NEEDS REVISION)
The text avoids many major AI patterns (no "testament," "pivotal," "serves as," promotional language, curly quotes, emoji, collaborative artifacts, knowledge-cutoff disclaimers). But mechanical formatting, vocabulary repetition, and predictable rhythm pull the score down. High Severity
Medium Severity
Low Severity
Patterns not found (good): No promotional language (#4), no superficial -ing phrases (#3), no vague attributions (#5), no "challenges and future prospects" (#6), no copula avoidance (#8), no synonym cycling (#11), no false ranges (#12), no em dash overuse (#13), no title case issues (#16), no emojis (#17), no curly quotes (#18), no collaborative artifacts (#19), no knowledge-cutoff disclaimers (#20), no sycophantic tone (#21), no excessive hedging (#23), no generic positive conclusion (#24). Stop-Slop Check (phrases, structures, rhythm)Score: 31/50 (NEEDS REVISION)
Good bones: clear structure, practical advice, specific examples. But throat-clearing openers, three-item lists, binary contrasts, and metronomic rhythm patterns stack up. Banned Phrases
Structural Cliches
Rhythm Patterns
Key Improvements Needed
Summary
The content is solid and the structure is clear. The article avoids the worst AI tells (no promotional language, no "testament/pivotal/landscape," no emoji or formatting disasters). The issues are surface-level patterns that can be cleaned up without changing the article's substance:
Most fixes are deletions or condensations. A single editing pass addressing the above should bring both scores above the 35/50 threshold. |
1 participant
Article Ready for Publication
Title: How to Organize Meeting Notes So You Can Actually Find Them Later
Author: Harshika
Date: 2026-02-22
Category: Guides
Branch: blog/organize-meeting-notes
File: apps/web/content/articles/organize-meeting-notes.mdx
Auto-generated PR from admin panel.
Updates since last revision
Ran a humanizer + stop-slop review pass on the article to clean up AI writing patterns. Changes include:
--legacy-peer-depstoblog-check.ymlnpm install stepFull review scores posted as a PR comment (Humanizer: 43/50 PASS, Stop-Slop: 34/50 borderline — fixes address the flagged items).
Review & Testing Checklist for Human
--legacy-peer-depsCI fix is acceptable. This flag suppresses peer dependency warnings — confirm it's not masking a real incompatibility in the blog-check workflow.Recommended test plan: Open the Netlify deploy preview and read the full article. Check formatting, links, and that no content was accidentally dropped.
Notes