✅ Deploy Preview for hyprnote-storybook canceled.

✅ Deploy Preview for hyprnote ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	3c101b9
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/hyprnote/deploys/699c3bac59f89900088fd6e7
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-4164--hyprnote.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration.

Blog Post Review: Humanizer + Stop-Slop

File: apps/web/content/articles/organize-meeting-notes.mdx

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 Severity

None

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

1. Cut all "Here's" openers — 4 instances throughout
2. Remove meta-commentary — "Which leads directly to the next point"
3. Delete emphasis fragments — "That lock-in is real." / "It works."
4. Vary paragraph endings — too many punchy one-liners
5. Remove binary contrast — opening section's "isn't X, is Y" pattern
6. Cut rhetorical scaffolding — "Ask yourself this first:"
7. Replace business jargon — "failure mode" → "problem"

Summary

The 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.

Grammar Check Results

Reviewed 1 article.

7 Ways to Organize Meeting Notes

📄 apps/web/content/articles/organize-meeting-notes.mdx

The article is well-written and professionally structured. No em dashes, punctuation placement errors, spelling mistakes, or grammar issues were detected. The content flows logically with clear section breaks and maintains consistent tone throughout. The writing is clear and actionable for the target audience.

Found 5 issues:

📋 Other

Line 18

AI meeting assistants record and transcribe without requiring manual note-taking. Otter and Fireflies both search across projects and dates, though transcripts live on their servers and export options vary by plan. Char saves markdown locally on the device.

No em dashes found in this section - this is compliant.

AI meeting assistants record and transcribe without requiring manual note-taking. Otter and Fireflies both search across projects and dates, though transcripts live on their servers and export options vary by plan. Char saves markdown locally on the device.

Line 22

Notion stores notes as database rows filterable by project, date, or attendee, while Obsidian links documents so relationships between meetings become visible over time. Logseq enforces regular review through daily notes with built-in task management. Markdown imports from tools like Char or Otter feed into any of these.

No em dashes or punctuation issues found - this is compliant.

Notion stores notes as database rows filterable by project, date, or attendee, while Obsidian links documents so relationships between meetings become visible over time. Logseq enforces regular review through daily notes with built-in task management. Markdown imports from tools like Char or Otter feed into any of these.

Line 24

A spreadsheet with one row per meeting (date, attendees, project, decisions, action items, notes link) lets you filter by project or find every conversation involving a specific person.

No em dashes or punctuation issues found - this is compliant.

A spreadsheet with one row per meeting (date, attendees, project, decisions, action items, notes link) lets you filter by project or find every conversation involving a specific person.

Line 26

CRMs like Salesforce, HubSpot, Attio, and Folk display complete conversation history when opening a contact. Most teams write notes elsewhere and import them because CRM text editors are clunky for real-time use. Sales teams, recruiters, and account managers use CRMs for this because customer conversations need a central location.

No em dashes or punctuation issues found - this is compliant.

CRMs like Salesforce, HubSpot, Attio, and Folk display complete conversation history when opening a contact. Most teams write notes elsewhere and import them because CRM text editors are clunky for real-time use. Sales teams, recruiters, and account managers use CRMs for this because customer conversations need a central location.

Line 28

Teams that launch wikis without assigning ownership tend to abandon them within six months as contradictions accumulate and nobody takes responsibility for accuracy.

No em dashes or punctuation issues found - this is compliant.

Teams that launch wikis without assigning ownership tend to abandon them within six months as contradictions accumulate and nobody takes responsibility for accuracy.

Powered by Claude Haiku 4.5

AI Slop Check Results

Reviewed 1 article for AI writing patterns.

7 Ways to Organize Meeting Notes

apps/web/content/articles/organize-meeting-notes.mdx

Score: 32/50 (NEEDS REVISION)

This text has moderate AI-slop indicators, mostly in the structural patterns. The opening uses staccato fragments for dramatic effect. Throughout, there's consistent use of three-sentence or three-item rhetorical structures that create metronomic rhythm without adding information (especially in Structured Retrieval and File Format sections). Several conclusions read like manufactured insights rather than direct statements ('which is the core problem...solves', 'tools get abandoned when', 'notes get buried'). Marketing-style framing appears in key recommendation sentences ('Pick tools by how you search' + consequence framing). Subtle anthropomorphization of tools and processes ('conversations need a location', 'formats make migrations painful') scattered throughout. The worst offenders are lines 2, 14, 22, 26, and 30, where the author constructs a lesson-like cadence rather than stating facts neutrally. The writing is competent and organized, but reads like someone trying to sound insightful by stacking parallel constructions and punchy endings. A technical reader will pattern-match this as LLM output because of the consistent rhythm and the way consequences are framed as discoveries rather than described as facts. The content itself is solid—the problems are rhetorical, not substantive.

Found 11 issues (0 high, 3 medium, 8 low)

MEDIUM — Likely AI Pattern

Line 12 — staccato-fragments

You send meeting notes. Three weeks later, nobody can find them. You schedule another meeting to redecide what you already decided.

Staccato fragments + conversational setup. Three short punchy sentences designed for dramatic effect rather than direct explanation. Reads like a sales pitch opening.

Meeting notes disappear. Teams reschedule to make the same decisions twice.

Line 24 — marketing-framing

A spreadsheet with one row per meeting (date, attendees, project, decisions, action items, notes link) lets you filter by project or find every conversation involving a specific person. Decision tracking across conversations and reconstructing past rationale become straightforward with a centralized index.

Second sentence uses significance inflation ('become straightforward with') and marketing framing ('centralized index' as solution descriptor). Also anthropomorphizes the spreadsheet as agent ('lets you...become straightforward'). Rephrased as direct benefit rather than reframe.

A spreadsheet with one row per meeting (date, attendees, project, decisions, action items, notes link) lets you filter by project or search for conversations with specific people. You can track decisions across conversations and reconstruct past reasoning.

Line 32 — marketing-framing

Pick tools by how you search: dates, people, or topics. Tools chosen for features alone get abandoned when the search method conflicts with how the team actually thinks about past conversations.

Second sentence uses marketing-style conditional framing ('get abandoned when...conflicts with') that reads like a cautionary lesson or testimonial insight rather than direct instruction. Also 'how the team actually thinks' is a subtle appeal to reader validation. Rephrased as direct statement.

Pick tools based on how you search: by date, person, or topic. Tools chosen only for features fail when the search method doesn't match how your team thinks about past conversations.

LOW — Subtle but Suspicious

Line 14 — conversational-announcement

Teams pick note systems for capture features and skip retrieval design. How you search determines whether you'll use the tool after the first week.

The second sentence reads like a dramatic announcement or clickbait reveal ('how you search determines...') rather than stating the consequence directly. Structure invites the reader to lean in.

Most teams focus on capture and ignore retrieval. Your search method determines whether you'll actually use the tool.

Line 18 — significance-inflation

AI meeting assistants record and transcribe without requiring manual note-taking. Otter and Fireflies both search across projects and dates, though transcripts live on their servers and export options vary by plan. Char saves markdown locally on the device. Most teams underestimate how often meetings end without anyone taking notes at all, which is the core problem automated transcription solves.

Closing sentence uses significance inflation ('which is the core problem...solves') that frames the insight as revelation rather than fact. The structure 'X, which is the core problem Y solves' is a classic LLM reframe move.

AI meeting assistants record and transcribe automatically. Otter and Fireflies search across projects and dates but store transcripts on their servers with varying export options. Char saves markdown locally. Most teams skip note-taking entirely—the actual problem automated transcription addresses.

Line 22 — metronomic-rhythm

Notion stores notes as database rows filterable by project, date, or attendee, while Obsidian links documents so relationships between meetings become visible over time. Logseq enforces regular review through daily notes with built-in task management. Markdown imports from tools like Char or Otter feed into any of these.

The 'while' construction combined with metronomic rhythm of features creates a manufactured flow. Breaking into separate statements removes the stacked, rhythmic quality that feels constructed for emphasis rather than clarity.

Notion stores notes as database rows filterable by project, date, or attendee. Obsidian links documents to reveal relationships between meetings over time. Logseq enforces regular review through daily notes with built-in task management. Markdown imports from Char or Otter work with all three.

Line 26 — anthropomorphization

CRMs like Salesforce, HubSpot, Attio, and Folk display complete conversation history when opening a contact. Most teams write notes elsewhere and import them because CRM text editors are clunky for real-time use. Sales teams, recruiters, and account managers use CRMs for this because customer conversations need a central location.

Third sentence begins with 'X use Y because Z' framing that reads as conclusion statement rather than observable fact. Also uses 'need' as anthropomorphic verb (conversations don't 'need' anything; teams do). Revised to describe what teams actually do.

CRMs like Salesforce, HubSpot, Attio, and Folk display conversation history when you open a contact. Most teams write notes elsewhere because CRM text editors are slow for real-time use, then import them. Sales teams, recruiters, and account managers rely on CRMs to keep customer conversations in one place.

Line 28 — metronomic-rhythm

Wiki-style tools like Confluence, Notion, and GitHub Wiki require a designated content owner who reviews and corrects on a schedule. Teams that launch wikis without assigning ownership tend to abandon them within six months as contradictions accumulate and nobody takes responsibility for accuracy.

Second sentence uses verbose causal chaining ('as contradictions accumulate and nobody takes responsibility') that reads like a concluding observation rather than factual consequence. Also 'nobody takes responsibility' is anthropomorphic phrasing. Simplified to action/outcome.

Wiki-style tools like Confluence, Notion, and GitHub Wiki require a designated content owner for regular review and correction. Teams that skip ownership abandon wikis within six months when contradictions pile up and nobody fixes them.

Line 34 — staccato-fragments

Email-based note storage works if your workflow centers on your inbox. Notes sit with other correspondence, and Gmail or Outlook search finds them by person, date, or subject. Multiple meetings per day clutter the inbox and notes get buried.

Third sentence is a staccato conclusion that echoes the opening binary pattern (works/fails, found/buried). The final punchy statement 'notes get buried' is manufactured drama. Revised to matter-of-fact consequence.

Email-based note storage works if your workflow is email-centric. Notes mix with correspondence. Gmail or Outlook search finds them by person, date, or subject—but multiple meetings per day bury notes in the inbox.

Line 36 — staccato-fragments

GTD requires writing raw notes during meetings, then processing them into action items and reference material. Most teams skip processing. Raw notes pile up and the weekly review never happens.

Staccato fragment pattern: three statements of escalating consequence (requires/skip/pile/never) designed for dramatic rhythm. 'The weekly review never happens' is a punchy ending that marks this as rhetorical construction rather than neutral observation. Minor fix: remove manufactured escalation.

GTD requires writing raw notes during meetings, then processing them into action items and reference material. Most teams skip the processing step. Raw notes pile up and the weekly review stops happening.

Line 40 — metronomic-rhythm

Char saves markdown locally, and those files open in Obsidian, Notion, VS Code, or any editor without conversion. Most teams change their note-taking setup every couple of years. Proprietary formats make migrations painful.

Three-sentence structure with escalating implication (saves locally / teams change / formats block) creates metronomic rhythm. Final sentence 'Proprietary formats make migrations painful' is a concluding observation that reads like a lesson rather than fact. Also, 'make migrations painful' is anthropomorphic (formats don't 'make' anything painful; they prevent migration).

Char saves markdown locally, so files open in Obsidian, Notion, VS Code, or any editor without conversion. Teams change note-taking setups every couple of years. Proprietary formats block migration.

Powered by Claude Haiku 4.5 with stop-slop rules

Blog Post Review: Humanizer + Stop-Slop

File: apps/web/content/articles/organize-meeting-notes.mdx
Reviewed at: 6c0bff4 (latest)

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 Severity

None

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:

1. Cut throat-clearing openers ("This solves a specific problem well", "Some people swear by this")
2. Vary paragraph endings — not every section needs to land on a punchy line
3. Remove "The real [X] is" patterns (line 66)
4. Replace absolute qualifiers ("most people" -> "people")
5. After fixes, the stop-slop score should clear 35/50

Blog Post Review: Humanizer + Stop-Slop

File: apps/web/content/articles/organize-meeting-notes.mdx

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

1. Cut "actually" overuse — 7+ instances throughout, remove most
2. Remove throat-clearing — "The real problem is", "The tradeoff that most people discover too late"
3. Break binary contrasts — "not X, but Y" and "If...If" patterns throughout
4. Vary paragraph endings — too many punchy one-liners creating metronomic rhythm
5. Reduce promotional language — Char sections read as sales copy
6. Trust readers more — delete over-explanations of metaphors, remove teaching tone
7. Tighten density — several cuttable sentences and filler phrases

Summary

Both checks flag the article for revision:

• Humanizer: 31/50 (threshold: 35) — promotional language in Char sections (Component modularization #4), negative parallelisms (Update landing page #9), teaching tone (Add Clova grpc streaming STT #21), and filler phrases (Add S3 crate #22) are the main culprits
• Stop-Slop: 30/50 (threshold: 35) — throat-clearing phrases, binary contrasts, metronomic rhythm, and 7+ uses of "actually" drag the score down

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-Slop

File: apps/web/content/articles/organize-meeting-notes.mdx
Reviewed at: commit 687fe35 (latest)

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

1. Cut all throat-clearing — "That's the real problem", "Here's every", "Here's the shortcut", "Which leads directly"
2. Reduce three-item lists to two — 4 instances throughout
3. Flatten binary contrasts — 4 instances; state Y directly
4. Remove "genuinely" x3 — overused AI vocabulary word
5. Delete meta-commentary — line 40 breaks the fourth wall
6. Vary rhythm — too many paragraphs end with punchy one-liners, Q&A section is metronomic
7. Replace "failure mode" — business jargon

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:

• 3 instances of "genuinely" (AI vocabulary)
• 7 identical ***Best for:** formatting blocks (mechanical)
• 4 throat-clearing openers to cut
• 4 binary contrasts to flatten
• 4 three-item lists to reduce
• 1 meta-commentary line to delete
• 1 business jargon term to replace

Most fixes are deletions or condensations. A single editing pass addressing the above should bring both scores above the 35/50 threshold.

Blog Post Review: Humanizer + Stop-Slop

File: apps/web/content/articles/organize-meeting-notes.mdx
Reviewed at: commit a2a9b73

Humanizer Check (24 AI writing patterns)

Score: 44/50 (PASS)

This is remarkably clean writing. It avoids 22 of 24 major AI patterns. Strong voice, good specificity, natural flow.

High Severity

None

Medium Severity

None

Low Severity

Patterns not found (good): No significance inflation (#1), no media notability claims (#2), no superficial -ing phrases (#3), no vague attributions (#5), no "challenges and future prospects" (#6), no AI vocabulary words (#7), no copula avoidance (#8), no negative parallelisms (#9), no rule-of-three overuse (#10), no synonym cycling (#11), no false ranges (#12), no boldface overuse (#14), no inline-header lists (#15), no title case headings (#16), no emojis (#17), no curly quotes (#18), no collaborative artifacts (#19), no knowledge-cutoff disclaimers (#20), no sycophantic tone (#21), no filler phrases (#22), no excessive hedging (#23), no generic positive conclusions (#24).

Stop-Slop Check (phrases, structures, rhythm)

Score: 37/50 (PASS)

The content is solid and mostly direct. Main area for improvement is rhythm — metronomic paragraph endings and some formulaic constructions.

Banned Phrases

None found. No throat-clearing openers, emphasis crutches, business jargon, filler adverbs, meta-commentary, performative emphasis, or telling-instead-of-showing.

Structural Clichés

Rhythm Patterns

Summary

The writing is clean on the humanizer side — it avoids nearly all classic AI tells and has genuine voice. The stop-slop check passes but is close to the threshold (35). The main area for improvement is rhythm variation: paragraph endings are too consistently punchy, and the triple if/then construction on line 22 reads as formulaic. All flagged issues are surface-level patterns that can be cleaned up without changing the article's substance.

Compared to previous review (Comment 3): The earlier revision pass successfully fixed the throat-clearing openers, meta-commentary, performative emphasis fragments, overused "genuinely", binary contrast in intro, rule-of-three construction, and business jargon. Humanizer score improved from 43→44 and stop-slop from 34→37 (now passing).

Blog Post Review: Humanizer + Stop-Slop

File: apps/web/content/articles/organize-meeting-notes.mdx
Reviewed at: 56f3b08 (latest on blog/organize-meeting-notes)

Humanizer Check (24 AI writing patterns)

Score: 35/50 (PASS)

The article avoids most major AI tells (no promotional puffery, no significance inflation, no -ing analyses, no vague attributions, no sycophantic tone, no emojis, no curly quotes, no collaborative artifacts). The remaining issues are structural and rhythmic.

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 false ranges (#12), 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 collaborative artifacts (#19), no knowledge-cutoff disclaimers (#20), no sycophantic tone (#21), no generic positive conclusions (#24).

Stop-Slop Check (phrases, structures, rhythm)

Score: 32/50 (NEEDS REVISION — threshold is 35)

Content is solid but rhythm patterns and structural cliches pull the score down. The main problems: metronomic paragraph endings, binary contrasts throughout, and three-item lists.

Banned Phrases

Structural Cliches

Rhythm Patterns

Key Improvements Needed

1. Vary paragraph endings — at least 3 sections end with punchy one-liners (L24, L90, L94). Break the pattern.
2. Reduce binary contrasts — 5 instances of "[X] is/does A. [Y] is/does B." throughout the article.
3. Trim three-item lists to two — at least 4 instances. Two items beat three.
4. Break "Best for:" repetition — all 7 sections use identical format. Vary 2-3.
5. Combine staccato fragments — several short declarative sentences could merge with neighbors for flow.

Summary

The article is free of heavy AI slop (no promotional language, no throat-clearing, no significance inflation). The remaining issues are structural rhythm: binary contrasts, metronomic endings, and three-item lists create a predictable cadence. Fixing the 5 items above would bring the stop-slop score above threshold without changing the article's substance or voice.

Blog Post Review: Humanizer + Stop-Slop

File: apps/web/content/articles/organize-meeting-notes.mdx

Humanizer Check (24 AI writing patterns)

Score: 35/50 (PASS)

The writing avoids most of the 24 major AI patterns (no significance inflation, no promotional language, no superficial -ing phrases, no vague attributions, no copula avoidance, no forced rule of three, no false ranges, no em dash overuse, no chatbot artifacts, no knowledge-cutoff disclaimers, no sycophantic tone, no generic positive conclusions, no curly quotes, no emoji decorations). Issues found are minor.

High Severity

None

Medium Severity

Low Severity

Patterns not found (good): No significance inflation (#1), no notability claims (#2), no superficial -ing phrases (#3), no promotional language (#4), no vague attributions (#5), no "challenges and future prospects" (#6), no copula avoidance (#8), no false ranges (#12), 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 collaborative artifacts (#19), no knowledge-cutoff disclaimers (#20), no sycophantic tone (#21), no excessive hedging (#23), no generic positive conclusions (#24).

Soul check: The opening paragraph (line 12) has good personality and specificity. Line 60 ("Most teams abandon wikis within six months") shows opinion. Line 66 ("Your inbox is already chaotic") acknowledges mess. However, the middle sections (options 3-5) read more like neutral reporting -- they could use more voice.

Stop-Slop Check (phrases, structures, rhythm)

Score: 38/50 (PASS)

The post avoids most throat-clearing openers, binary contrasts, dramatic fragmentation, and business jargon. The remaining issues are minor tightening opportunities.

Banned Phrases

Structural Cliches

Rhythm Patterns

Key Improvements (optional tightening)

1. Cut "actually" from meta description (line 4)
2. Remove meta-explanation -- "which is why the distinction matters in practice" (line 58)
3. Remove false absolute -- "everything" (line 76)
4. Trim "already" -- appears 3x, cut to 1 (lines 20, 66)
5. Simplify over-explanation -- "which is distinct from" to "not" (line 72)

Summary

Both checks pass. The humanizer check scores 35/50 -- the writing avoids all major AI tells and the remaining issues are minor construction patterns. The stop-slop check scores 38/50 -- direct, authentic writing with only a few cuttable words and one meta-commentary clause. The article has been significantly cleaned up from earlier revisions. Remaining suggestions are optional tightening, not blocking issues.

Blog Post Review: Humanizer + Stop-Slop

File: apps/web/content/articles/organize-meeting-notes.mdx
Reviewed at: 62db976 (latest on branch)

Humanizer Check (24 AI writing patterns)

Score: 35/50 (PASS)

The article avoids most classic AI patterns (no promotional language, no significance inflation, no superficial -ing phrases, no vague attributions, no "challenges and future prospects" sections, 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). Issues are concentrated in copula avoidance, mechanical structure, and voice.

Medium Severity

Low Severity

Patterns Not Found (good)

#2 Notability emphasis, #3 Superficial -ing analyses, #4 Promotional language, #5 Vague attributions, #6 Outline-like sections, #7 AI vocabulary, #9 Negative parallelism, #11 Elegant variation, #12 False ranges, #13 Em dash overuse, #14 Boldface overuse, #17 Emojis, #18 Curly quotes, #19 Collaborative artifacts, #20 Knowledge-cutoff disclaimers, #21 Sycophantic tone, #22 Filler phrases, #23 Excessive hedging, #24 Generic positive conclusions

Voice Notes

• Opening paragraph has personality (the lost-meeting scenario)
• Middle sections become neutral/Wikipedia-like -- no first-person perspective
• Could benefit from conversational asides or opinions in places

Stop-Slop Check (phrases, structures, rhythm)

Score: 31/50 (NEEDS REVISION -- threshold is 35)

Main issues: excessive three-item lists (6 instances), binary contrasts, overuse of "most" as hedge word, and staccato fragmentation.

Banned Phrases / Filler

Structural Cliches

Rhythm Patterns

Key Improvements Needed

1. Cut "most" hedging -- 4 instances of "most teams" reads as manufactured authority
2. Break three-item lists -- 6 instances; use two items or restructure
3. Remove binary contrasts -- 3 formulaic "not X, but Y" constructions
4. Vary staccato endings -- too many stacked short declarative sentences
5. Remove "naturally" -- AI-overused intensifier on line 23

Summary

The humanizer check passes -- the article avoids most classic AI tells after the previous revision pass. The stop-slop check fails (31/50, threshold 35) -- primarily due to excessive three-item lists (6 instances), repeated "most teams" hedging (4 instances), and binary contrast structures. These are surface-level patterns that can be cleaned up without changing the article's substance.

Blog Post Review: Humanizer + Stop-Slop

File: apps/web/content/articles/organize-meeting-notes.mdx
Reviewed at: 6bc3364ed (latest commit on branch)

Humanizer Check (24 AI writing patterns)

Score: 30/50 (NEEDS REVISION)

High Severity

Medium Severity

Low Severity

Patterns not found (good): No promotional language (#4 minimal), no superficial -ing phrases (#3), no em dash overuse (#13), no emoji (#17), no collaborative artifacts (#19), no knowledge-cutoff disclaimers (#20), no sycophantic tone (#21), no curly quotes (#18), no generic positive conclusions (#24), no excessive hedging (#23), no copula avoidance (#8), no elegant variation (#11), no false ranges (#12), no title case issues (#16), no boldface overuse (#14 outside the "Best for" pattern).

Biggest structural tell: The seven-system section is mechanically uniform — identical formatting, identical "Best for:" headers, two paragraphs each. This rigid template is the strongest AI signal in the piece.

Stop-Slop Check (phrases, structures, rhythm)

Score: 38/50 (PASS)

Banned Phrases

Structural Clichés

None found. The previous revision successfully removed binary contrasts and dramatic fragmentation.

Rhythm Patterns

Positive Elements

• Strong opening: Concrete, relatable scenario without manufactured drama
• No binary contrasts: Previous revision fixed these
• No meta-commentary: Clean
• No performative fragments: Clean
• No business jargon stacks: Clean
• Minimal em-dash usage: Appropriate, not dramatic
• Trusts the reader: No over-explaining or hand-holding

Recommended Quick Fixes

1. Cut "The real constraint is" → just "The constraint is search" (line 18)
2. Collapse three-item lists to two items where possible (lines 20, 28, 30)
3. Vary the "Best for:" structure — this is the biggest remaining AI tell from both checks

Combined Summary

The article content is strong and the previous revision cleaned up most of the obvious AI slop (throat-clearing, binary contrasts, performative fragments). The remaining issues are structural: the seven-system catalog uses identical formatting that reads as AI-assembled, the voice drops out in the middle section, and several three-item lists create metronomic rhythm. The stop-slop check passes (38/50), but the humanizer check flags the rigid template structure and voice loss as significant concerns (30/50).

Top 3 actions to improve scores:

1. Vary the structure of system descriptions — don't use identical "Best for:" headers for all seven
2. Add voice/personality to at least 2-3 of the system descriptions (opinions, personal experience, specific scenarios)
3. Collapse remaining three-item lists to two items

Blog Post Review: Humanizer + Stop-Slop

File: apps/web/content/articles/organize-meeting-notes.mdx

Humanizer Check (24 AI writing patterns)

Score: 41/50 (PASS)

The writing avoids 20 of 24 major AI patterns. Strong specificity, natural flow, good opening anecdote. Issues are minor polish, not emergency repairs.

High Severity

None

Medium Severity

Low Severity

Patterns not found (good): No promotional superlatives, no vague attributions, no "Challenges and Future Prospects" sections, no copula avoidance ("serves as"), no negative parallelisms, no false ranges, no em dash overuse, no emoji decorations, no chatbot artifacts, no knowledge-cutoff disclaimers, no sycophantic tone, no excessive hedging, no generic positive conclusions, no curly quotes, no boldface overuse, no synonym cycling.

Stop-Slop Check (phrases, structures, rhythm)

Score: 38/50 (PASS)

No major slop patterns (no throat-clearing openers, no binary contrasts, no dramatic fragmentation, no business jargon). Main issue is rhythm — multiple three-item lists create a metronomic cadence.

Banned Phrases

Structural Cliches

Rhythm Patterns

Strengths

• No throat-clearing openers ("Here's the thing," "Let me be clear")
• No binary contrasts ("Not X. But Y.")
• No dramatic fragmentation or staccato fragments
• No business jargon
• No emphasis crutches or performative emphasis
• Practical, actionable content with varied paragraph endings
• Opening anecdote is specific and relatable

Summary

The article is clean. It avoids all major AI tells — no throat-clearing, no binary contrasts, no promotional superlatives, no business jargon, no fragmentation. The main improvement opportunity is rhythm: breaking up the repeated three-item list pattern (5 instances) and trimming one announcement sentence in the intro. These are polish-level issues, not blockers.

Blog Post Review: Humanizer + Stop-Slop

File: apps/web/content/articles/organize-meeting-notes.mdx
Revision: Latest (2bc6b9ac4)

Humanizer Check (24 AI writing patterns)

Score: 36/50 (PASS)

The writing avoids 20+ of 24 major AI patterns. No promotional language, no significance inflation, no superficial -ing phrases, no vague attributions, no em dash abuse, no emojis, no collaborative artifacts, no sycophantic tone, no generic positive conclusions. Strong opening anecdote, good specificity throughout.

High Severity

None

Medium Severity

Low Severity

Voice note: The opening paragraph is strong and natural. Middle sections settle into a more neutral/instructional tone and lose some of that personality. One more pass to inject occasional opinion or first-person perspective into the tool descriptions would strengthen the voice score.

Patterns not found (good): No promotional language (#4), no significance inflation (#1), no superficial -ing phrases (#3), no vague attributions (#5, except one mild case), no "challenges and future prospects" (#6), no negative parallelisms (#9), no false ranges (#12), no em dash overuse (#13), no boldface abuse (#14), no inline-header lists (#15), no emoji decorations (#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 conclusions (#24).

Stop-Slop Check (phrases, structures, rhythm)

Score: 40/50 (PASS)

The content is solid and respects reader intelligence. Main issues are minor rhythm patterns and a couple of cuttable phrases.

Banned Phrases

Structural Cliches

No major structural cliches found. The previous revision successfully removed binary contrasts ("isn't X, is Y"), throat-clearing openers, and meta-commentary.

Rhythm Patterns

Summary

Both checks pass. The article has been significantly improved from earlier revisions — throat-clearing openers, binary contrasts, performative emphasis, and overused AI vocabulary have been cleaned up. Remaining issues are minor: a couple of wordy constructions (humanizer), and a few rhythm patterns (stop-slop). The content and structure are strong; these are polish-level notes, not structural problems.

Blog Post Review: Humanizer + Stop-Slop

File: apps/web/content/articles/organize-meeting-notes.mdx
Revision: Post round-8 rewrite (commit e92316f)

Humanizer Check (24 AI writing patterns)

Score: 39/50 (PASS)

Overall this is clean writing. It avoids most egregious AI patterns — no promotional language, no superficial -ing phrases, no vague attributions, no em dashes, no chatbot artifacts, no generic positive conclusions, no curly quotes, no emojis.

High Severity

None

Medium Severity

Low Severity

Patterns not found (good): No promotional language (#4), no significance inflation (#1 major), no superficial -ing phrases (#3), no vague attributions (#5), no copula avoidance (#8), no rule of three (#10), no false ranges (#12), no em dash overuse (#13), no boldface overuse (#14), no inline-header lists (#15), no emoji (#17), no collaborative artifacts (#19), no knowledge-cutoff disclaimers (#20), no sycophantic tone (#21), no generic positive conclusions (#24).

Stop-Slop Check (phrases, structures, rhythm)

Score: 37/50 (PASS)

The writing has personality and avoids most AI vocabulary. The opening scenario is effective. Main remaining issues are wordy constructions and a few binary contrasts.

Banned Phrases

Structural Cliches

Rhythm Patterns

Positive Patterns (no issues)

• No throat-clearing openers ("Here's the thing")
• No emphasis crutches ("Let that sink in", "Full stop")
• No performative emphasis
• No meta-commentary
• No em-dash reveals
• No staccato fragmentation
• Good sentence length variation overall
• Strong opening anecdote with specific detail

Summary

Both checks pass. The article reads naturally with strong specificity and genuine voice (the wiki section at line 40 with "I've watched this happen repeatedly" is particularly good). Remaining issues are minor — a few binary contrast patterns and wordy "which means" connectors that could be tightened. The content and structure are solid; no major revision needed.

Blog Post Review: Humanizer + Stop-Slop

File: apps/web/content/articles/organize-meeting-notes.mdx
Reviewed at: commit 81a88f2 (latest on branch)

Humanizer Check (24 AI writing patterns)

Score: 40/50 (PASS)

This article is remarkably clean. It avoids 20+ of the 24 major AI patterns. Strong first-person voice ("I've watched", "I've seen"), specific tool names and real scenarios, no chatbot artifacts or generic conclusions.

High Severity

None

Medium Severity

Low Severity

Patterns not found (strengths): No significance inflation (#1), no notability puffery (#2), no superficial -ing analyses (#3), no promotional language (#4), no vague attributions (#5), no "challenges and future prospects" (#6), no copula avoidance (#8), no negative parallelisms (#9), no synonym cycling (#11), no false ranges (#12), no em dash overuse (#13), no boldface abuse (#14), no inline-header lists (#15), no emoji decorations (#17), no curly quotes (#18), no collaborative artifacts (#19), no knowledge-cutoff disclaimers (#20), no sycophantic tone (#21), no generic positive conclusions (#24).

Stop-Slop Check (phrases, structures, rhythm)

Score: 38/50 (PASS)

The article is direct and respects reader intelligence. No throat-clearing openers, no binary contrasts, no emphasis crutches, no meta-commentary. Main issues are minor: a few three-item lists and occasional wordiness.

Banned Phrases

None found. No throat-clearing openers, no emphasis crutches, no business jargon, no meta-commentary, no performative emphasis.

Structural Cliches

Rhythm Patterns

Summary

Both checks pass. The article avoids nearly all classic AI tells:

• No significance inflation, promotional language, or vague attributions
• No throat-clearing, binary contrasts, or emphasis crutches
• Strong first-person voice with real experience
• Specific tool names and concrete scenarios

Remaining micro-issues (optional polish):

1. Three-item lists appear 3 times — collapse one or two to pairs
2. "proves nearly impossible" → "is impossible"
3. "complete conversation history" → "conversation history"
4. Minor redundancy between paragraphs 1 and 2 ("three weeks later" appears twice)

This reads like human-written blog content. The voice, specificity, and lack of AI patterns are well above typical AI-generated content. The previous revision successfully cleaned up the binary contrasts, throat-clearing, and other patterns flagged in earlier reviews.

Blog Post Review: Humanizer + Stop-Slop

File: apps/web/content/articles/organize-meeting-notes.mdx
Review run: 2026-02-23 (re-review of current HEAD after prior cleanup rounds)

Humanizer Check (24 AI writing patterns)

Score: 33/50 (NEEDS REVISION)

The text is unusually clean on surface-level AI patterns (no significance inflation, no promotional language, no -ing superficialities, no negative parallelisms, no copula avoidance, no em dashes, no emojis, no collaborative artifacts, no curly quotes, no generic positive conclusions). The main weakness is vague attributions — multiple "most teams" and "teams do X" claims without sources or specific examples.

High Severity

Medium Severity

Low Severity

Patterns not found (good): No significance inflation (#1), no notability emphasis (#2), no superficial -ing phrases (#3), no promotional language (#4), no "challenges and future prospects" (#6), no copula avoidance (#8), no negative parallelisms (#9), no rule of three (#10), no synonym cycling (#11), no false ranges (#12), 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 collaborative artifacts (#19), no knowledge-cutoff disclaimers (#20), no sycophantic tone (#21), no excessive hedging (#23), no generic positive conclusions (#24).

Key improvement: The article needs specific data, sources, or at least first-person anecdotes to replace the vague "most teams" attributions. No first-person perspective or strong opinions reduce the voice score.

Stop-Slop Check (phrases, structures, rhythm)

Score: 33/50 (NEEDS REVISION — threshold is 35)

The piece is better than typical AI slop — it has genuine insights and mostly trusts the reader. The dominant issues are three-item list overuse throughout and binary contrast structures.

Banned Phrases

Structural Clichés

Rhythm Patterns

Key Improvements Needed

1. Break three-item lists — the dominant AI rhythm pattern throughout; use two items or one
2. Vary tool description structure — Notion/Obsidian/Logseq section follows identical patterns
3. Eliminate binary contrast structures — 4 instances of implicit "not X, but Y"
4. Shorten failure cascades — wiki and GTD sections have metronomic multi-part progressions
5. Replace "downstream" jargon — minor but flagged

Summary

Both checks flag the article for revision. The humanizer check scores 33/50 (below 35 threshold) — primarily due to pervasive vague attributions ("most teams" x 4) and lack of specific data or first-person voice. The stop-slop check scores 33/50 (below 35 threshold) — primarily due to three-item list overuse and binary contrast structures throughout.

The content and advice are sound. The issues are patterns, not substance:

• Replace vague "most teams" claims with specific examples or first-person experience
• Break the three-item list habit (use two items or integrate into prose)
• Vary tool description structures so they don't follow identical templates
• Add at least one concrete anecdote or data point

Blog Post Review: Humanizer + Stop-Slop

File: apps/web/content/articles/organize-meeting-notes.mdx
Revision: Round 11 (latest, commit 3c101b9)

Humanizer Check (24 AI writing patterns)

Score: 41/50 (PASS)

The article is remarkably clean of AI patterns. Out of 24 patterns, only 2 minor issues were found. The prose is tight, specific, and avoids nearly all classic AI tells.

High Severity

None

Medium Severity

Low Severity

Patterns not found (22 of 24 clean): No promotional language, no significance inflation (beyond one minor instance), no superficial -ing phrases (beyond one minor instance), no vague "challenges and future prospects" sections, no AI vocabulary overuse, no copula avoidance, no negative parallelisms, no rule of three, no elegant variation, no false ranges, no em dash overuse, no boldface abuse, no inline-header lists, no title case issues, no emojis, no curly quotes, no collaborative artifacts, no knowledge-cutoff disclaimers, no sycophantic tone, no filler phrases, no excessive hedging, no generic positive conclusions.

Stop-Slop Check (phrases, structures, rhythm)

Score: 32/50 (NEEDS REVISION — threshold is 35)

The content is solid and specific, but persistent rhythm issues (too many three-item lists), vague attributions ("most teams" x4), and announcement sentences that restate the obvious drag the score below the threshold.

Banned Phrases

Structural Cliches

Rhythm Patterns

Priority Fixes

1. Eliminate "most teams" vague attributions — 4 instances, either cut "most" or cite evidence
2. Reduce three-item lists — 3+ instances of rule-of-three rhythm
3. Cut announcement sentences — opening sentences that restate headings or tell readers what they just read
4. Vary sentence rhythm — email and GTD sections have metronomic pacing
5. Remove binary antithesis — "pick X and ignore Y" in intro

Summary

The humanizer check passes (41/50) — the writing avoids 22 of 24 AI patterns. Strong specificity, no promotional fluff, no structural AI tells. The main weakness is lack of personality/voice (reads as a neutral reference guide rather than a person sharing insights).

The stop-slop check fails (32/50, threshold 35) — persistent rhythm patterns (three-item lists, metronomic pacing), 4 unsubstantiated "most teams" claims, and announcement sentences that restate obvious points. The content and specificity are strong; the issues are delivery patterns that can be cleaned up without changing substance.