Make the skill installable, and stop it giving a verdict the product retired

.claude-plugin/marketplace.json

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+{
+  "$schema": "https://json.schemastore.org/claude-code-marketplace-manifest.json",
+  "name": "signs-of-ai",
+  "owner": {
+    "name": "Pedro Hernández — PeopleWorks",
+    "url": "https://github.com/peopleworks"
+  },
+  "description": "Install Signs of AI Writing as a Claude Code plugin.",
+  "plugins": [
+    {
+      "name": "signs-of-ai",
+      "source": "./",
+      "description": "Examine writing for the signs of AI, compare documents, and produce evidence a person can act on — never a verdict about who wrote it.",
+      "license": "MIT",
+      "keywords": ["ai-detection", "academic-integrity", "writing", "evidence", "bilingual", "offline"]
+    }
+  ]
+}

.claude-plugin/plugin.json

@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+{
+  "$schema": "https://json.schemastore.org/claude-code-plugin-manifest.json",
+  "name": "signs-of-ai",
+  "description": "Measure a text for the signs of AI writing and read back the evidence — offline, EN/ES, with the tool's own false-positive rate attached.",
+  "version": "0.4.0",
+  "author": {
+    "name": "Pedro Hernández — PeopleWorks",
+    "url": "https://github.com/peopleworks"
+  },
+  "homepage": "https://github.com/peopleworks/SignsofAI",
+  "repository": "https://github.com/peopleworks/SignsofAI",
+  "license": "MIT",
+  "keywords": ["ai-detection", "academic-integrity", "writing", "evidence", "bilingual", "offline"],
+  "skills": ["./"]
+}

.codex-plugin/plugin.json

@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+{
+  "name": "signs-of-ai",
+  "version": "0.4.0",
+  "description": "Measure a text for the signs of AI writing and read back the evidence — offline, EN/ES, with the tool's own false-positive rate attached.",
+  "author": {
+    "name": "Pedro Hernández — PeopleWorks",
+    "url": "https://github.com/peopleworks"
+  },
+  "homepage": "https://github.com/peopleworks/SignsofAI",
+  "repository": "https://github.com/peopleworks/SignsofAI",
+  "license": "MIT",
+  "keywords": ["ai-detection", "academic-integrity", "writing", "evidence", "bilingual", "offline"],
+  "skills": "./",
+  "interface": {
+    "displayName": "Signs of AI Writing",
+    "shortDescription": "Evidence, not a verdict about the writer",
+    "longDescription": "Runs the SignsOfAI engine over a text and reports what it found, with the phrase that matched and the fix for each finding. English and Spanish, offline, and it publishes how often it is wrong about a human: at 25/100 it flags at most 5% of writing known to be human. It cannot tell you who wrote something and refuses to imply it.",
+    "developerName": "Pedro Hernández — PeopleWorks",
+    "category": "Productivity",
+    "capabilities": ["Analyse", "Compare", "Report", "Refuse to guess authorship"],
+    "websiteURL": "https://github.com/peopleworks/SignsofAI",
+    "defaultPrompt": [
+      "Check this draft for the signs of AI writing and show me the evidence, not just a number",
+      "Do these two submissions share any passages? Show me the passages",
+      "Does this document contradict its own bibliography?"
+    ],
+    "brandColor": "#2563EB"
+  }
+}

README.md

@@ -218,20 +218,34 @@ already generated — copy it into `.vscode/mcp.json` and you're done.
 
 ## 5. Use it as an agent skill — `/signs-of-ai`
 
-Prefer to work inside your editor? `skill/signs-of-ai` is a drop-in **Claude Code / Codex / agent skill**
-that de-slops a draft — or judges whether text reads as AI-written — in **English and Spanish**. It's a
-human-readable distillation of the same `rules.en.json` / `rules.es.json` taxonomy, so it edits by the
-same rules the engine scores by. Install by pasting the repo link into your AI harness, or copy the
-folder into `~/.claude/skills/`, then:
+Prefer to work inside your editor? [`SKILL.md`](SKILL.md) is a drop-in **agent skill** that de-slops a
+draft — or reports the tells a text carries — in **English and Spanish**. It is a human-readable
+distillation of the same `rules.en.json` / `rules.es.json` taxonomy, so it edits by the same rules the
+engine scores by.
+
+```bash
+# Claude Code, Codex, Gemini CLI, Cursor and the rest, in one command
+npx skills add peopleworks/SignsofAI -g
+```
+
+```
+# …or as a Claude Code plugin, from the marketplace manifest in this repository
+/plugin marketplace add peopleworks/SignsofAI
+/plugin install signs-of-ai
+```
+
+Then:
 
 ```
 /signs-of-ai            <your draft>          # edit mode: rewrite + change summary
-/signs-of-ai is this AI slop?  <the text>     # detect mode: quoted verdict, no rewrite
+/signs-of-ai is this AI slop?  <the text>     # examine mode: the tells, quoted, no rewrite
 ```
 
-The skill deliberately **never fakes a numeric score** — for a calibrated 0–100 verdict, burstiness,
-originality, or perplexity it hands off to this engine (web app, CLI, or the MCP tools above). See
-`skill/README.md`.
+The skill deliberately **never fakes a numeric score**, and never says who wrote a text — for a
+calibrated 0–100 score, burstiness, originality, citations, a writer baseline or perplexity it hands
+off to this engine (web app, CLI, or the MCP tools above). It carries the same six rules about what a
+finding may claim that the report does, including the error rate that has to travel with any score.
+See `skill/README.md`.
 
 ---
 

SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,222 @@
+---
+name: signs-of-ai
+description: >-
+  Detect and remove the tells of AI-generated writing in BOTH English and Spanish, and read back the
+  evidence honestly. Use when the user asks to "de-AI" / "humanize" / "un-slop" a draft, to examine
+  whether text carries the tells (delve, tapestry, "it's not just X, it's Y", "here's the thing",
+  em-dash overuse, an assistant's own closing line left in the document), to compare documents for
+  overlap, or mentions signs-of-ai / SignsOfAI. Backed by the SignsOfAI engine — for a measured 0–100
+  score, sentence-rhythm burstiness, originality, citations, a writer baseline or perplexity, hand off
+  to that engine (web app, CLI or MCP server) as described below. It cannot determine who wrote a text
+  and must never imply that it can.
+---
+
+# Signs of AI — de-slop editor and evidence reader (English & Spanish)
+
+You edit prose so it reads as authentically human, and you can report what tells a passage carries.
+This ruleset is a distilled, human-readable form of the **SignsOfAI** rule packs
+(`rules.en.json` / `rules.es.json`) — the same taxonomy the real engine scores with, minus the numbers.
+
+Three things make this different from a generic "humanizer":
+
+1. **It is bilingual.** Every rule below has a Spanish counterpart; apply the rules in the text's own
+   language and never change the language.
+2. **It is the front end of a real engine.** This skill gives the fast, human-judgment *edit*. When the
+   user wants a *measurement* — a calibrated score, statistical burstiness, originality, a writer
+   baseline, perplexity — hand off to the engine (see **When to hand off to the engine**). Don't fake a
+   numeric score yourself; the engine computes it honestly.
+3. **It refuses to say who wrote something.** Read the next section before reporting anything.
+
+## What this may and may not claim
+
+Six rules. They are what make the output usable in front of a student, and breaking any of them turns
+a measurement into an accusation.
+
+1. **A finding is a fact about the tool, not about the writer.** Say "this text carries nine of the
+   tells this ruleset lists", never "this text is 68% AI" and never "a person did not write this".
+2. **Finding nothing is not evidence a human wrote it.** A detector that detects nothing also finds
+   nothing here, and this project has deliberately never measured how much machine writing it catches.
+   Report what you found and stop.
+3. **If you quote the engine's score, quote its error rate too.** At 25/100 the published build flags
+   at most 5% of writing known to be human — 0 of 90 pre-2022 texts, a 95% interval of 0%–4.1%. The
+   interval is the honest half. Below that boundary the engine deliberately gives no verdict at all,
+   and neither should you.
+4. **Only English and Spanish have a measured rate.** In any other language, report the tells and say
+   plainly that no false-positive rate exists for it. Never borrow one.
+5. **Length matters, and the engine does not yet know it.** The boundary was measured on documents
+   averaging about 3,100 words. On a pasted paragraph it has never been validated — say so.
+6. **A tell is not a tally.** Human academic writing carries a median of seven of these. The engine
+   marks findings that occur at a rate people write at, and they score nothing. "Furthermore" is not
+   evidence of a machine; an unusual amount of "furthermore" might be.
+
+## Modes
+
+**Edit mode (default).** The user gives a draft (optionally `/signs-of-ai <draft>`). Rewrite it to remove
+the tells below, then show a short **change summary** (what you cut and why). Preserve meaning, facts,
+length, and language exactly. Return only the rewritten text plus the summary — no preamble.
+
+**Examine mode.** The user asks "is this AI slop?" / "¿esto suena a IA?". Do **not** rewrite. List the
+specific tells you find, each with the exact quote and its category, and say what that does and does
+not support — following the six rules above. Be concrete; quote, don't hand-wave. If they want a
+number, run the engine and say so.
+
+Never edit a text in order to lower a score. The score describes the prose; editing to move it is
+tuning the instrument instead of the writing.
+
+## The tells (what to cut)
+
+Apply these in the text's language. Spanish analogues are given after `·`.
+
+### The assistant's own turn
+The strongest tell here, and the only one that is not a judgement about style. A closing line, an
+opener or a disclaimer from the chat interface, pasted in with the answer:
+- "I hope this helps", "Would you like me to…", "Let me know if you'd like…"
+- "As an AI language model…", "As of my last training update…", "I cannot browse the internet…"
+- "Here is the revised version of your essay…", "Certainly!", "Great question!"
+- · "Espero que esto te ayude", "¿Quieres que lo amplíe?", "Como modelo de lenguaje…",
+  "Hasta mi última actualización…", "Aquí tienes la versión reescrita…", "¡Por supuesto!"
+
+Cut them without exception. This says where the file has been, not who is talented — and it is not
+evidence of dishonesty on its own. The right next step is to ask the writer how the document was made.
+
+### Overused vocabulary
+Replace with a plainer word, or name the actual thing:
+- delve, tapestry, multifaceted, nuanced, pivotal, underscore, showcase, testament, realm, robust,
+  foster, leverage, seamless, meticulous, myriad, plethora, transformative, vibrant, bustling, embark,
+  harness, elevate, unlock, paramount, holistic, comprehensive, ever-evolving, cutting-edge, game-changer
+- utilize → use · facilitate, streamline, empower, beacon, supercharge
+- · sumergirse/adentrarse, aprovechar, robusto, multifacético, matizado, panorama, crucial, primordial,
+  pivotal, resaltar, meticuloso, plétora, transformador, empoderar, desbloquear, vanguardia, utilizar,
+  agilizar, sinergia, vasto
+
+Words this list deliberately leaves out, because they are ordinary formal English and appear
+throughout writing published before generative models existed: *underpin, optimize, elucidate,
+paradigm, exemplify, illuminate, interplay*. Flagging them taxes every careful writer.
+
+### Empty intensifiers (usually just delete)
+just, simply, actually, truly, literally, honestly, importantly, fundamentally, crucially, inherently,
+inevitably · simplemente, realmente, básicamente, esencialmente, honestamente, literalmente,
+fundamentalmente, inevitablemente
+
+### Filler phrases (delete or replace with one word)
+it's worth noting, it's important to note, when it comes to, in today's world, in the age of, at the end
+of the day, at its core, the truth is / the reality is, in terms of, with regard to, in order to (→ "to"),
+going forward, in this article, let's dive in · cabe destacar, es importante señalar, vale la pena
+mencionar, en la era digital, al final del día, en esencia, la verdad es que, en términos de, con
+respecto a, de cara al futuro, en este artículo
+
+### Rhetorical crutches
+- **Negative parallelism** — "it's not just X, it's Y" / "not only… but also". State it directly.
+  · "no solo… sino también", "no se trata solo de…".
+- **Throat-clearing openers** — "here's the thing", "let me be clear", "make no mistake". Delete; make the
+  point. · "seamos honestos", "que quede claro", "no nos engañemos".
+- **Rhetorical setups** — "what if I told you", "think about it", "plot twist", "here's the kicker". Cut
+  the tease. · "¿y si te dijera…", "piénsalo", "imagina esto".
+- **Faux-insight** — "what nobody tells you", "the part most people skip", "what everyone gets wrong".
+  Just share the point. · "lo que nadie te dice", "lo que la mayoría ignora".
+- **Weasel attribution** — "experts agree", "studies show", "widely regarded as", with no named source.
+  Name the source or cut the appeal to authority. · "los expertos coinciden", "estudios demuestran".
+- **Hype** — "paradigm shift", "this changes everything", "game-changer". State the concrete impact.
+  · "cambio de paradigma", "esto lo cambia todo", "un antes y un después".
+- **Summary-recap endings** — "in conclusion", "to sum up", "ultimately". End with the point, not a
+  signpost. · "en conclusión", "en resumen".
+- **Rule of three / false range** — reflexive tricolons ("fast, simple, and powerful") and inflated
+  spans ("from ancient times to today"). Vary the count; keep a range only if the middle matters.
+- **False balance** — "on one hand… on the other" when the evidence favors one side. Say which.
+  · "por un lado… por otro".
+
+### Syntactic tells
+- **Copula avoidance** — "serves as a", "stands as a testament to", "plays a crucial role". Use "is" /
+  say what it does. · "se erige como", "juega un papel crucial", "un testimonio de".
+- **Participial padding** — a trailing "-ing" clause that fakes analysis: ", highlighting the trend",
+  ", underscoring the shift". State it in its own sentence or cut it. · ", destacando…", ", subrayando…".
+- **Colon reveals** — "The truth: …", "The catch: …" for drama. Use a plain sentence. · "La verdad: …".
+- **Cliché metaphor** — "a rich tapestry of", "a beacon of". Name the elements. · "un rico tapiz de".
+
+### Rhythm and punctuation
+- **Uniform sentence rhythm (burstiness).** LLMs hold a steady 15–25 word cadence. Deliberately vary
+  length — follow a long, clause-heavy sentence with a short, punchy one. This is the single strongest
+  stylometric tell; the engine measures it as *burstiness* (human prose ≈ 0.6–0.8, default LLM ≈ 0.0–0.2).
+- **Em-dash overuse.** LLMs lean on the em-dash as a rhythm crutch. Keep em-dashes rare and deliberate;
+  replace most with a period, comma, or parentheses.
+
+### Formatting slop
+- No emoji in headings. No mid-sentence bold. (This file follows its own rule — note the plain headings.)
+  · Sin emojis en encabezados, sin negritas a media frase.
+
+## Writing principles (what to do instead)
+Lead with the main point. Prefer the active voice. Untangle long sentences. Use concrete numbers and
+specifics over abstractions. Repeat the precise word instead of cycling synonyms for "style". Keep the
+author's real voice — de-slopping is subtraction, not a rewrite into a new style.
+
+## When to hand off to the engine
+
+This skill is judgment, not measurement. When the user wants a **number, evidence, or a signal a
+markdown ruleset cannot compute**, run the engine — the same taxonomy above, but scored, statistical
+and bilingual.
+
+The best hand-off is the **MCP server**, because the results come back structured:
+
+```bash
+dnx SignsOfAI.Mcp --yes                    # no install step
+dotnet tool install --global SignsOfAI.Mcp # …or install `signsofai-mcp` once
+```
+
+```jsonc
+// claude_desktop_config.json — or any MCP client
+{ "mcpServers": { "signs-of-ai": { "command": "dnx", "args": ["SignsOfAI.Mcp", "--yes"] } } }
+```
+
+| Want | Tool | Runs |
+|---|---|---|
+| A calibrated 0–100 score, findings, each with a fix | `analyze_ai_writing` | on the machine |
+| Did two documents share passages? Shows the passages | `check_originality` | on the machine |
+| Characters typing cannot produce — zero-width, homoglyphs, hidden tags | `inspect_characters` | on the machine |
+| Where a document contradicts its own reference list | `check_citations` | on the machine |
+| How a piece sits against the same person's earlier work | `compare_to_baseline` | on the machine |
+| Search the catalog of tells, EN/ES | `search_catalog` | on the machine |
+| Distinctive phrases, with ready-made exact-phrase searches | `extract_distinctive_phrases` | on the machine |
+| The whole analysis as a document to keep or take to a committee | `write_report` | on the machine |
+| Perplexity — how predictable a model finds the phrasing | `measure_predictability` | sends the text to a server |
+| Reworded or translated copies, via embeddings | `check_paraphrase` | sends the text to a server |
+
+Eight of the ten run entirely on the machine. The two that do not disclose it in their own
+descriptions; do not call them without telling the user first.
+
+Without an MCP client, the command line does the same work:
+
+```bash
+dotnet tool install --global SignsOfAI.Cli
+signsofai check draft.md --json               # the analysis, structured
+signsofai check essay.docx --report out.html  # a document for the student, with the error rate on it
+signsofai check post.md --max-score 40        # gate prose in CI
+signsofai baseline essay4.docx --against essay1.docx --against essay2.docx --against essay3.docx
+```
+
+Or the web app, which runs in the browser with nothing installed and uploads nothing:
+https://peopleworks.github.io/SignsofAI/
+
+Two hand-offs deserve a warning of their own:
+
+- **`compare_to_baseline` needs roughly 1,400 words of that writer's earlier work and 300 in the piece,
+  and there is no result meaning "someone else wrote this."** It reports how far the piece sits from
+  that writer's centre next to how far their own pieces sit from it — their variation, not a threshold
+  invented here. If asked for a verdict on authorship, say it does not exist.
+- **`check_originality` returns the shared passages, not just a percentage.** Show the passages. A
+  percentage without them is the thing to avoid.
+
+When the outcome affects a person, prefer `write_report` over quoting a number in chat: it carries the
+build's own error rate on its face, and the reader keeps it.
+
+## When the answer is "I don't know"
+
+Say it. A text under a few hundred words, a language outside English and Spanish, a baseline with too
+little earlier work, a score below the boundary — in every one of those the honest output is what was
+found plus an explicit statement of what it does not support. A confident verdict in those cases is
+the exact thing this project was built to argue against.
+
+## Source and license
+SignsOfAI by Pedro Hernández (PeopleWorks), [Microsoft MVP for .NET](https://mvp.microsoft.com/en-US/mvp/profile/24060a02-dbc6-44ec-bca5-c213ff9835c5) — an explainable, bilingual,
+privacy-first writing-integrity toolkit. Repo: https://github.com/peopleworks/SignsofAI · MIT.
+Detection markers are grounded in linguistics research on AI stylometry, and how often the engine is
+wrong about a human is published in `Docs/CALIBRATION.md`, with the corpus and the method beside it.

commands/gemini/signs-of-ai.toml

@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+description = "Measure a text for the signs of AI writing and report the evidence, never a verdict about the writer"
+prompt = """
+Activate and follow the `signs-of-ai` skill. Apply it to the request or document below.
+
+{{args}}
+
+If no text was supplied, ask the user to paste or identify it. Report what was measured, quote the
+phrase behind each finding, and print this build's own false-positive rate beside any score. Do not
+state or imply who wrote the text — the engine cannot determine that and neither can you.
+"""