Publish: How to Organize Meeting Notes So You Can Actually Find Them Later

[harshikaalagh-netizen]

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:

• Removed throat-clearing openers ("That's the real problem…", "Here's the shortcut:", "Ask yourself this first:")
• Cut meta-commentary ("Which leads directly to the next point.")
• Removed performative emphasis fragments ("That lock-in is real.", "Stupid simple, right?")
• Replaced overused AI vocabulary ("genuinely" ×3 → removed or replaced with "actually")
• Fixed binary contrast pattern in intro ("isn't the hard part… is" → direct statement)
• Collapsed rule-of-three construction ("No manual filing, no folder decisions, no naming conventions" → two items)
• Replaced business jargon ("failure mode" → "problem")
• Removed emphasis crutch ("That's not a minor difference in workflow.")
• Also fixed CI: added --legacy-peer-deps to blog-check.yml npm install step

Full 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

• Read the article end-to-end for voice and tone. The cleanup removed some casual/punchy phrases (e.g., "Stupid simple, right?"). Verify the article still sounds like Harshika's voice and not too sterile after edits.
• Check the Char promotional sections (sections 1 and 2, plus the closing). These mention Char by name multiple times. Confirm the balance feels editorial rather than advertorial.
• Verify the --legacy-peer-deps CI fix is acceptable. This flag suppresses peer dependency warnings — confirm it's not masking a real incompatibility in the blog-check workflow.
• Preview the article on the deploy preview to confirm MDX renders correctly (headings, bold/italic formatting, overall layout).

Recommended test plan: Open the Netlify deploy preview and read the full article. Check formatting, links, and that no content was accidentally dropped.

Notes

• Link to Devin run: https://app.devin.ai/sessions/81dab4ed00f54f429c8d0b9b04887461
• Requested by: unknown ()

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for hyprnote-storybook canceled.

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	3c101b9
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/hyprnote-storybook/deploys/699c3bacac9b2c000882ec57

[netlify]

✅ 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.

[devin-ai-integration]

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)

Dimension	Score
Naturalness	8.5/10
Specificity	9/10
Voice	9/10
Rhythm	8/10
Conciseness	8.5/10

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

Line	Original	Pattern	Suggested Rewrite
14	"Capturing them isn't the hard part. Keeping them findable is."	#9 Negative Parallelism — classic "isn't X, is Y" construction	"Capturing them is easy. Keeping them findable is hard."
32	"No manual filing, no folder decisions, no naming conventions."	#10 Rule of Three — parallel triple negative	"No manual filing or folder decisions. Just show up and the notes are there."

Low Severity

Line	Original	Pattern	Suggested Rewrite
16	"what each one is genuinely good for"	#7 AI Vocabulary — "genuinely" appears 3× in ~1000 words	"what each one is actually good for"
78	"If your team will genuinely keep it updated"	#7 AI Vocabulary	"If your team will actually keep it updated"
84	"Some people genuinely swear by this."	#7 AI Vocabulary	"Some people swear by this."
96	"The core insight that matters here is that"	#22 Filler Phrase — could be more direct	"The core insight: capturing notes and organizing them are two separate activities"

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)

Dimension	Score
Directness	7/10
Rhythm	6/10
Trust	8/10
Authenticity	7/10
Density	6/10

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

Line	Original	Category	Suggested Fix
14	"That's the real problem with meeting notes."	Throat-clearing / "The real [X] is"	Delete. Next sentence works as opener on its own.
16	"Here's every practical system that works"	Throat-clearing ("Here's")	"Every practical system that works"
22	"Ask yourself this first:"	Rhetorical setup	Delete. Start with "When you're trying to remember..."
36	"That lock-in is real."	Performative emphasis fragment	Delete or integrate into prior sentence: "...your archive is at their mercy."
40	"Which leads directly to the next point."	Meta-commentary	Delete entirely.
54	"This one gets overlooked but it solves a specific problem really well."	Hedging/softening	"This solves a specific problem:"
75	"The failure mode is that wikis require ongoing maintenance"	Business jargon ("failure mode")	"The problem is wikis require..."
84	"Stupid simple, right?"	False intimacy / rhetorical	Delete or "Very simple."
96	"The core insight that matters here is"	Announcement phrase	Start with the actual insight: "Capturing notes and organizing them are two separate activities"
102	"Here's the shortcut:"	Throat-clearing ("Here's")	"The shortcut:" or just state it directly
104	"That's not a minor difference in workflow."	Emphasis crutch / announcement	Delete. Next sentence carries the point.

Structural Clichés

Line	Pattern	Problem	Fix
14	"Capturing them isn't the hard part. Keeping them findable is."	Binary contrast formula	"Keeping them findable is the hard part."
24	"The system that matches your brain is the one you'll actually use six months from now."	Pull-quotable line	Rewrite plainly: "Use a system that matches how you think."

Rhythm Patterns

Issue	Location	Fix
Too many paragraphs end with short punchy lines	"That lock-in is real." / "It works." / "Just show up and the notes are there."	Vary endings — some can be longer, more complex
Stacked single-sentence paragraphs	Multiple locations	Consolidate or vary structure
4 instances of "Here's" openers	Lines 16, 40, 96, 102	Cut or rephrase

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.

[github-actions]

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.

📋 Suggested fix (click to expand)

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.

📋 Suggested fix (click to expand)

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.

📋 Suggested fix (click to expand)

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.

📋 Suggested fix (click to expand)

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.

📋 Suggested fix (click to expand)

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)

Dimension	Score
Directness	6/10
Rhythm	6/10
Trust	7/10
Authenticity	6/10
Density	7/10

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.

Suggested rewrite

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.

Suggested rewrite

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.

Suggested rewrite

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.

Suggested rewrite

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.

Suggested rewrite

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.

Suggested rewrite

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.

Suggested rewrite

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.

Suggested rewrite

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.

Suggested rewrite

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.

Suggested rewrite

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).

Suggested rewrite

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

[devin-ai-integration]

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)

Dimension	Score
Naturalness	8/10
Specificity	9/10
Voice	8/10
Rhythm	7/10
Conciseness	8/10

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

Line	Original	Pattern	Suggested Rewrite
16	"Every practical system that works, what each one is good for, and how to pick one that matches how you actually think."	#22 Filler / Fragment — sentence fragment masquerading as complete thought	"Here are seven systems, what each does best, and how to choose."

Low Severity

Line	Original	Pattern	Suggested Rewrite
14	"Keeping them findable is the hard part."	#9 Negative Parallelism (mild) — implied "isn't X, is Y" across two sentences	Could keep as-is; the fragment is intentional for rhythm
34	"Otter, Granola, Fireflies and others do this well."	#10 Rule of Three — three named tools plus "others"	"Otter, Fireflies, and others do this well." or just name two
36-37	"Switch tools and you're hoping their export works. Stop paying and your archive is at their mercy."	#10 Rule of Three (borderline) — parallel two-part construction is fine, but sentences match length exactly	Vary one sentence's length slightly

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)

Dimension	Score
Directness	6/10
Rhythm	5/10
Trust	7/10
Authenticity	6/10
Density	6/10

Content is solid but has enough performative patterns and metronomic rhythm to feel slightly manufactured.

Banned Phrases

Line	Original	Category	Suggested Fix
14	"Keeping them findable is the hard part."	Telling instead of showing — the opening scenario already demonstrates this	Delete. The opening paragraph makes the point.
20-21	"Most people skip this question entirely."	Absolute word ("most")	"People skip this question."
24	"Pick a system that matches how you think. That's the one you'll still use six months from now."	Performative simplicity ("That's the [thing]")	"Pick a system that matches how you think — you'll still use it six months from now."
52	"This solves a specific problem well."	Throat-clearing	Delete. Start with "Keep a master spreadsheet..."
66	"The real problem with CRMs is the writing experience."	"The real [X] is" pattern	"CRMs have clunky writing experiences."
72-73	"A wiki is not the same thing as a notes folder, even though the line looks blurry from the outside."	Hedging + softening	"A wiki differs from a notes folder."
82	"Some people swear by this."	Throat-clearing / unnecessary softening	Delete. Start with "Notes go to their inbox."

Structural Cliches

Line	Pattern	Problem	Fix
32-33	"No manual filing or folder decisions. Just show up and the notes are there."	Punchy one-liner ending	Vary: "Join a meeting and get a structured summary with search built in. No manual filing."
75	"For teams, this is often the right long-term answer."	Hedging ("often")	"For teams, this is the right long-term answer."
94	"Capturing notes and organizing them are two separate activities, and treating them as the same thing is where most systems fall apart."	Absolute word + verbose	"Capturing notes and organizing them are separate activities. Conflating them breaks systems."

Rhythm Patterns

Issue	Location	Fix
Too many paragraphs end with short punchy lines	Lines 14, 33, 52, 82, 84	Vary endings — some should be longer, more complex
Three-item list	Line 34 ("Otter, Granola, Fireflies")	Use two items
Metronomic sentence matching	Lines 36-37 (parallel "Switch tools... Stop paying...")	Vary one sentence's length
Paragraphs starting with "Some" / "Most"	Lines 20, 82	Start with content, not qualifiers

---

Combined Summary

Check	Score	Status
Humanizer	40/50	PASS
Stop-Slop	30/50	NEEDS REVISION

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

[devin-ai-integration]

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)

Dimension	Score
Naturalness	6/10
Specificity	7/10
Voice	5/10
Rhythm	7/10
Conciseness	6/10

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

Line	Original	Pattern	Suggested Rewrite
38	"Char handles this differently."	#4 Promotional language — marketing speak	"Char works differently."
44	"Because Char outputs plain markdown files, they drop straight into any of these tools without conversion or reformatting."	#4 Promotional language — "drop straight into" is sales copy	"Char saves notes as markdown files. Import them into any of these tools without conversion."
44	"This is the advantage of owning your files rather than renting space in someone else's database."	#4 Promotional language — sales metaphor	"Your files, not theirs."
102	"It's the difference between building on land you own and land you're renting."	#4 Promotional language — sales metaphor	Delete. Previous sentence makes the point.
104	"Char is worth trying first for exactly that reason. Record your next meeting...You're not committing to Char. You're just keeping your options open."	#4 Promotional + #9 Negative parallelism — entire closing is sales pitch with "You're not...You're just"	Needs complete rewrite to reduce promotional tone

Medium Severity

Line	Original	Pattern	Suggested Rewrite
20	"Most people skip this question entirely."	#19 Collaborative artifacts — chatbot teaching tone	"People skip this question."
52	"This solves a specific problem well."	#22 Filler phrase — empty statement	Delete entirely.
66	"The real problem with CRMs is the writing experience."	#21 Sycophantic tone — "the real problem" chatbot explanation	"CRMs are clunky to type in."
66	"The workflow that actually works is an integration between your CRM and the note-taker."	#8 Copula avoidance — overcomplicated construction	"Connect your note-taking tool to your CRM."
70	"Fewer of them exist than people assume."	#21 Teaching tone — chatbot correcting assumptions	"Rarer than you'd think."
72	"A wiki is not the same thing as a notes folder, even though the line looks blurry from the outside."	#9 Negative parallelism + #21 Teaching tone	"A wiki isn't a notes folder."
76	"If your team will actually keep it updated, a wiki is excellent. If you're being honest and you know the maintenance won't happen, this probably isn't your answer."	#9 Negative parallelism — "If...If" construction	"Wikis are excellent if your team keeps them updated. Otherwise, skip it."
92	"Getting Things Done, PARA, Zettelkasten. These are frameworks for how you handle notes, not for where you store them."	#9 Negative parallelism — "not for X, for Y"	"GTD, PARA, and Zettelkasten are about processing notes, not storing them."
94	"Capturing notes and organizing them are two separate activities, and treating them as the same thing is where most systems fall apart."	#1 Undue emphasis on significance	"Capture and organization are separate. Most people conflate them."

Low Severity

Line	Original	Pattern	Suggested Rewrite
46	"Notion treats notes like a database...Obsidian treats notes like a web"	#11 Elegant variation — "treats notes like" repeated	"Notion is a database. Obsidian is a wiki."
62	"A CRM organizes your notes in a way nothing else does: by person, not by date."	#9 Negative parallelism — weak construction	"A CRM organizes notes by person, not date."
82	"Some people swear by this."	#5 Vague attribution — "some people"	Delete or make specific.
84	"The search in both is good now."	#20 Knowledge-cutoff — "now" suggests time-bounded knowledge	"The search in both is reliable."
86	"there's a real argument for centralizing everything in one place you already live in every day."	#22 Filler phrases — wordy	"If you search for everything anyway, keeping it all in email makes sense."
94	"Notes that never get processed are just noise that accumulates."	#4 Promotional language — slightly dramatic	"Unprocessed notes are clutter."
100	"Start with your capture tool, because everything else flows from it."	#1 Undue emphasis — "flows from" slightly inflated	"Start with your capture tool. Everything else depends on it."

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)

Dimension	Score
Directness	6/10
Rhythm	5/10
Trust	6/10
Authenticity	7/10
Density	6/10

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

Line	Original	Category	Suggested Fix
14	"Keeping them findable is the hard part."	"The real [X] is" variant / emphasis crutch	"Finding them later is harder."
36	"The tradeoff that most people discover too late:"	Throat-clearing announcement	"The tradeoff:"
52	"This solves a specific problem well."	Unnecessary qualifier / announcement	Delete entirely or merge with next sentence.
66	"The real problem with CRMs is the writing experience."	"The real [X] is" (banned phrase)	"CRMs have clunky writing experiences."
66	"The workflow that actually works is an integration..."	"actually" intensifier	"The workflow is an integration..."
76	"The problem is that wikis require ongoing maintenance, and most teams don't actually do that maintenance."	"The problem is" + "actually" intensifier	"Wikis require ongoing maintenance. Most teams don't maintain them."
86	"But if your primary retrieval method is search anyway, there's a real argument for centralizing everything..."	Wordy filler	"If you search for everything anyway, keeping it all in email makes sense."
94	"Capturing notes and organizing them are two separate activities, and treating them as the same thing is where most systems fall apart."	Announcement of insight	"Most systems fail because they conflate capture with organization. Separate them."
102	"It's the difference between building on land you own and land you're renting."	Over-explaining metaphor	Delete. Previous sentence makes the point.

Structural Cliches

Line	Pattern	Problem	Fix
72	"A wiki is not the same thing as a notes folder"	Binary contrast / formulaic reframe	"Wikis differ from notes folders."
92	"frameworks for how you handle notes, not for where you store them"	Binary contrast	"These frameworks address handling, not storage."
94	"two separate activities"	Creates false binary	State directly
102	"building on land you own and land you're renting"	Explaining the metaphor	Trust it to land or cut it

Rhythm Patterns

Issue	Location	Fix
"actually" appears 7+ times	Lines 2, 16, 22, 66, 76, 82, 96	Remove most instances
Metronomic paragraph endings — too many end with punchy one-liners	"This solves a specific problem well." / "It works." / multiple paragraphs	Vary endings; some can be longer, more complex
Three parallel "Do you remember" questions	Line 22	Keep two, cut one, or vary the structure
"Most people" / absolute words appear throughout	Lines 20, 34, 76, 94	Reduce frequency or make specific

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.

[devin-ai-integration]

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)

Dimension	Score
Naturalness	6/10
Specificity	8/10
Voice	5/10
Rhythm	6/10
Conciseness	7/10

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

Line	Original	Pattern	Suggested Rewrite
16	"genuinely good for"	#7 AI Vocabulary — "genuinely" appears 3x in ~1000 words (lines 16, 78, 84)	Remove all three. Use "actually" once at most, or nothing.
30, 42, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90	***Best for:** ...* repeated 7x	#14 Boldface Overuse + #15 Inline-Header Vertical Lists — mechanical bold+italic pattern identical across all 7 sections	Vary the format. Integrate into prose or drop the bold/italic combo.

Medium Severity

Line	Original	Pattern	Suggested Rewrite
14	"That's the real problem with meeting notes."	#1 Significance Inflation — "real problem" inflates importance	"That's the problem with meeting notes." or delete entirely
14	"Capturing them isn't the hard part. Keeping them findable is."	#9 Negative Parallelism — "isn't X, is Y"	"Keeping them findable is the hard part."
32	"No manual filing, no folder decisions, no naming conventions."	#10 Rule of Three — parallel triple negative	"No manual filing or folder decisions."
36	"The tradeoff that most people discover too late:"	#1 Significance Inflation — "too late" inflates drama	"The tradeoff:"

Low Severity

Line	Original	Pattern	Suggested Rewrite
12	"digging through Slack, your inbox, and three different apps"	#10 Rule of Three	"digging through Slack, your inbox, and whatever else you were using"
76	"Decisions, processes, product decisions."	#10 Rule of Three — also repeats "decisions"	"Decisions and processes"
96	"The core insight that matters here is that"	#22 Filler Phrase	"The core insight:"

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)

Dimension	Score
Directness	6/10
Rhythm	5/10
Trust	7/10
Authenticity	7/10
Density	6/10

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

Line	Original	Category	Suggested Fix
14	"That's the real problem with meeting notes."	Throat-clearing ("The real [X] is")	Delete. Next sentence works as the opener.
16	"Here's every practical system that works"	Throat-clearing ("Here's")	"Seven practical systems: what each does well, and how to choose."
20	"Most people skip this question entirely."	Absolute word ("Most people")	"People skip this question."
36	"The tradeoff that most people discover too late:"	Absolute word ("most people")	"The tradeoff:"
40	"Which leads directly to the next point."	Meta-commentary	Delete entirely.
54	"This one gets overlooked but it solves a specific problem really well."	Hedging/softening	"This solves a specific problem:"
78	"The failure mode is that wikis require ongoing maintenance"	Business jargon ("failure mode")	"The problem is wikis require ongoing maintenance"
84	"Stupid simple, right?"	False intimacy / rhetorical question	Delete or replace with "Very simple."
96	"The core insight that matters here is that"	Announcement phrase	Start with the insight directly: "Capturing notes and organizing them are two separate activities"
102	"Here's the shortcut:"	Throat-clearing ("Here's")	"Start with your capture tool."
104	"That's not a minor difference in workflow."	Emphasis crutch	Delete. The metaphor that follows carries the point.

Structural Cliches

Line	Pattern	Problem	Fix
14	"Capturing them isn't the hard part. Keeping them findable is."	Binary contrast formula ("[X] isn't the problem. [Y] is.")	"Keeping them findable is the hard part."
46	"This is the advantage of owning your files rather than renting space in someone else's database."	Binary contrast (own vs. rent)	"Own your files. Don't rent database space."
64	"by person, not by date"	Binary contrast	"A CRM organizes notes by person."
104	"It's the difference between building on land you own and land you're renting."	Binary contrast metaphor	"Own the land you build on."

Rhythm Patterns

Issue	Location	Fix
Three-item lists	Lines 32, 48, 66, 76	Use two items. "No manual filing or folder decisions." / "Filter by project or attendee" / "Sales and account management" / "Decisions and processes"
Metronomic question-answer-question-answer	Line 22 (three Q&A pairs stacked)	Reduce to two examples or restructure as prose
Too many "Here's" openers	Lines 16, 102 (plus "Which leads directly" at 40)	Cut or rephrase all
Predictable punchy endings	"That lock-in is real." / "It works." / multiple sections	Vary paragraph endings; some should be longer, more complex

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

Check	Score	Status
Humanizer	32/50	NEEDS REVISION
Stop-Slop	31/50	NEEDS REVISION

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.

[devin-ai-integration]

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)

Dimension	Score
Naturalness	9/10
Specificity	9/10
Voice	9/10
Rhythm	9/10
Conciseness	8/10

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

Line	Original	Pattern	Suggested Rewrite
34	"Otter, Fireflies, and others do this well."	#4 Promotional Language — mildly promotional phrasing	"Otter and Fireflies both offer this."
62	"Sales, account management, recruiting, consulting — for these roles, a CRM is often the correct system even if nobody frames it as a note organization tool."	#13 Em Dash — single em dash instance + #5 Vague framing ("even if nobody frames it")	"Sales, account management, recruiting, and consulting all benefit from CRMs because they revolve around relationship history."

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)

Dimension	Score
Directness	8/10
Rhythm	6/10
Trust	8/10
Authenticity	7/10
Density	8/10

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

Line	Original	Category	Suggested Fix
22	"If you think in dates, go chronological. If you think in people, a contact-based system or CRM will serve you better... If you think in topics, tags and full-text search..."	Formulaic construction — triple if/then pattern feels mechanical	Compress: "Match your system to that. Dates → chronological. People → CRM. Topics → tags and search."
62	"even if nobody frames it as a note organization tool"	Telling instead of showing — meta-commentary on framing	Cut it: "...a CRM is the correct system."
80	"Your inbox is probably already a mess. But if search is your primary retrieval method, centralizing notes in a place you check constantly has some logic to it."	Setup/reversal + hedging — "has some logic to it" is a hedge	"Your inbox is already a mess. If you search to find things, putting notes where you already search makes sense."

Rhythm Patterns

Issue	Location	Fix
Metronomic paragraph endings — too many close with short punchy statements	Line 14: "Finding them later is hard." / Line 38: "The files are yours." / Line 90: "No tool saves you if you don't process afterward."	Vary endings — let some paragraphs end with longer, more complex sentences
Three consecutive sentences of similar length	Lines 94–96: "Start with your capture tool. Everything else depends on that choice. Notes locked in a specific platform limit your options..."	Vary sentence length or combine
Soft conditional ending	Line 72: "Only choose this if your team will maintain it."	Stronger: "Choose this only if your team maintains documentation."

---

Summary

Check	Score	Status
Humanizer (24 patterns)	44/50	PASS
Stop-Slop (phrases, structures, rhythm)	37/50	PASS

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).

[devin-ai-integration]

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)

Dimension	Score
Naturalness	7/10
Specificity	8/10
Voice	6/10
Rhythm	6/10
Conciseness	8/10

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

Line	Original	Pattern	Suggested Rewrite
14	"Capturing notes is easy. Finding them later is hard."	#9 Negative Parallelism — binary "[X] is [adj]. [Y] is [opposite]."	"Most people capture notes fine but can't find them three weeks later."
52	"The spreadsheet serves as an index for finding notes, not for storing them."	#8 Copula Avoidance — "serves as" instead of "is"	"The spreadsheet is an index — it helps you find notes, not store them."
46	"Notion functions as a queryable database... Obsidian treats notes as... Logseq emphasizes..."	#11 Elegant Variation — three parallel sentences cycling verbs (functions/treats/emphasizes)	"Notion works as a queryable database (filter by project or attendee). Obsidian is closer to a personal wiki with linked notes. Logseq emphasizes daily notes and task tracking."

Low Severity

Line	Original	Pattern	Suggested Rewrite
34	"Otter, Fireflies, and others do this well."	#10 Rule of Three — "X, Y, and others" implies forced grouping	"Otter and Fireflies handle this well."
16	"This guide covers seven systems, what each excels at, and how to pick one that fits how you work."	#22 Filler Phrase — "what each excels at" is slightly wordy	"This guide covers seven systems, their strengths, and how to pick one."
70	"The gap between them matters because decisions should live on pages that get updated as conditions change, not in timestamped files that go stale."	#1 Undue Emphasis on Significance — "the gap between them matters because" inflates importance	"Decisions should live on pages that get updated, not in timestamped files that go stale."
80	"Your inbox is likely chaotic, but if search is your strength, centralizing notes where you already look has merit."	#23 Excessive Hedging — "likely" and "has merit" hedge unnecessarily	"Your inbox is chaotic, but if search is your strength, centralize notes where you already look."

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)

Dimension	Score
Directness	7/10
Rhythm	5/10
Trust	7/10
Authenticity	6/10
Density	7/10

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

Line	Original	Category	Suggested Fix
80	"has merit"	Hedging/softening	"works" or just rewrite: "centralize notes where you already look."

Structural Cliches

Line	Pattern	Problem	Fix
14	"Capturing notes is easy. Finding them later is hard."	Binary contrast formula — "[X] is [adj]. [Y] is [opposite]."	"Most people capture notes fine but can't find them three weeks later."
70	"Notes capture what happened; wikis document current state."	Binary contrast — "[X] does A; [Y] does B"	"Notes record what happened. Wikis document current state." (separate into two sentences, less parallel)
86	"Getting Things Done, PARA, and Zettelkasten are processing frameworks, not storage systems."	Antithesis — "are X, not Y"	"Getting Things Done, PARA, and Zettelkasten are processing frameworks." (cut the negation)
96	"Platform-specific notes trap you in that ecosystem. Plain files port to any tool later."	Binary contrast — two parallel short sentences with opposing claims	"Platform-specific formats lock you in. Plain files are portable." or combine: "Platform-specific notes trap you; plain files port anywhere."
52	"The spreadsheet serves as an index for finding notes, not for storing them."	Antithesis — "for X, not for Y"	"The spreadsheet is an index to find notes."

Rhythm Patterns

Issue	Locations	Fix
Metronomic paragraph endings — too many sections end with short punchy one-liners	L24 "Match your system to how you search. You'll keep using it." / L90 "Processing matters more than the tool itself." / L94 "Choose your capture tool first, because every other decision follows from it."	Vary endings. Some can be longer or merged into prior paragraph.
Three-item lists	L22 "the time it happened, the person involved, or the topic?" / L16 "seven systems, what each excels at, and how to pick one" / L46 "Notion... Obsidian... Logseq..." / L98 "Obsidian, Notion, or VS Code"	Reduce to two items where possible. L22 could be "the time or the topic?"
Staccato fragmentation	L20 "People skip this question." / L36 "Vendor lock-in is the tradeoff." / L90 "Processing matters more than the tool itself."	Short declarative openers/closers stack up. Combine some with adjacent sentences.
Repeated "Best for:" formula	L30, L42, L50, L58, L68, L76, L84 — seven identical structures	Vary at least 2-3 of these. E.g., start some sections with the recommendation directly instead of the label.

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

Check	Score	Status
Humanizer (24 patterns)	35/50	PASS
Stop-Slop (phrases/structures/rhythm)	32/50	NEEDS REVISION

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.

[devin-ai-integration]

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)

Dimension	Score
Naturalness	7/10
Specificity	8/10
Voice	6/10
Rhythm	6/10
Conciseness	8/10

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

Line	Original	Pattern	Suggested Rewrite
58	"Decisions should live on updated pages rather than in timestamped files that go stale, which is why the distinction matters in practice."	#9 Negative Parallelism -- "rather than" construction with appended meta-explanation	"Decisions should live on updated pages, not in timestamped files that go stale."
18	"The better starting question is how you search for things after a meeting."	#22 Filler Phrase -- "The better X is" construction	"Start by asking how you search for things after a meeting."

Low Severity

Line	Original	Pattern	Suggested Rewrite
20	"A system aligned with how you already think about past conversations will stick longer than one that forces a new habit."	#7 AI Vocabulary -- "aligned with" is a passive AI-favored construction	"A system that matches how you think about past conversations will stick longer than one that forces new habits."
28	"The tool records, transcribes, and summarizes each meeting automatically, giving you a structured summary with search built in."	#10 Rule of Three -- three-verb list feels feature-listy	"The tool records and transcribes automatically, then generates a searchable summary."
78	"Char records meetings, generates transcripts and summaries, and saves everything as markdown files on your device."	Rhythm -- both closing sentences have similar length/structure	Consider varying the sentence structure in this final section

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)

Dimension	Score
Directness	8/10
Rhythm	7/10
Trust	8/10
Authenticity	8/10
Density	7/10

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

Banned Phrases

Line	Original	Category	Suggested Fix
4	"Here are 7 systems that actually work"	Filler adverb ("actually")	"Here are 7 systems that work"
58	"which is why the distinction matters in practice"	Meta-commentary / explaining importance	Delete clause. Prior sentence carries the point.
76	"Your capture tool determines everything else that follows."	False absolute ("everything")	"Your capture tool determines what you can do with notes later."

Structural Cliches

Line	Pattern	Problem	Fix
72	"They address what you do with notes after a meeting, which is distinct from where you store them."	Over-explanation	"They address what you do with notes after a meeting, not where you store them."

Rhythm Patterns

Issue	Location	Fix
Repeated "already"	Lines 20, 66 (x2) -- three instances of "already"	Cut at least two: "how you think about past conversations" / "Your inbox is chaotic" / "where you look every day"
Similar section structure	Each of the 7 options follows the same "Best for" + explanation pattern	Minor -- acceptable for a listicle guide, but could vary 1-2 sections

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.

Check	Score	Status
Humanizer (24 AI patterns)	35/50	PASS
Stop-Slop (phrases/structures/rhythm)	38/50	PASS
Combined	73/100	PASS

[devin-ai-integration]

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)

Dimension	Score
Naturalness	7/10
Specificity	8/10
Voice	6/10
Rhythm	6/10
Conciseness	8/10

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

Line	Original	Pattern	Suggested Rewrite
40	"Notion works as a queryable database. Obsidian functions as a linked web"	#8 Copula Avoidance -- "works as" and "functions as" instead of "is"	"Notion is a queryable database. Obsidian is a linked web, like a personal wiki."
16	"Before You Pick a System: How Do You Search for Things?"	#16 Title Case in Headings	"Before you pick a system: how do you search for things?"
22	"Seven Systems for Organizing Meeting Notes"	#16 Title Case in Headings	"Seven systems for organizing meeting notes"
24-70	Every section uses "Best for:" bold header pattern	#15 Inline-Header Vertical Lists -- mechanical repetition	Consider varying the structure or removing bold from some instances

Low Severity

Line	Original	Pattern	Suggested Rewrite
58	"Notes record what happened in a meeting. Wikis document the current state. Outdated timestamped files contradict each other."	#10 Rule of Three -- three declarative statements in sequence	Combine last two: "Wikis document current state, but outdated timestamped files contradict each other."
14	"Most meeting notes disappear because they're impossible to find"	#1 Significance inflation (borderline) -- generic sweeping claim	Could be more specific, but acceptable in a guide intro

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)

Dimension	Score
Directness	7/10
Rhythm	5/10
Trust	6/10
Authenticity	7/10
Density	6/10

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

Banned Phrases / Filler

Line	Original	Category	Suggested Fix
14	"Most meeting notes disappear because..."	Absolute word ("most") -- false authority	"Meeting notes disappear because..."
18	"Most teams pick tools based on hype"	Absolute word ("most")	"Teams pick tools based on hype"
23	"naturally" in "how you naturally search"	AI-overused intensifier	"how you search"
59	"Most teams abandon wikis within six months"	Absolute word ("most")	"Teams abandon wikis within six months"
72	"Most teams skip this step"	Absolute word ("most")	"Teams skip this step"

Structural Cliches

Line	Original	Category	Suggested Fix
20	"A tool that fits your instinct lasts longer than one that requires new habits."	Binary contrast	"Tools that fit your instinct last."
52	"Most teams don't type directly into the CRM. Instead, they pipe notes in..."	Binary contrast (not X, instead Y)	"Teams pipe notes into CRMs from dedicated tools."
58	"Notes record what happened in a meeting. Wikis document the current state."	Binary contrast	"Wikis document current state, not meeting history."

Rhythm Patterns

Issue	Location	Fix
Excessive three-item lists	Line 14 ("seven systems, what each does well, and how to pick one"), Line 28 ("records, transcribes, and summarizes"), Line 30 ("search across meetings, tag by project, and locate statements"), Line 40 ("Notion...Obsidian...Logseq"), Line 72 ("Getting Things Done, PARA, and Zettelkasten"), Line 78 ("Obsidian, Notion, VS Code")	Use two items instead of three where possible
Staccato fragmentation	Lines 58-60 ("Notes record... Wikis document... Contradictions pile up."), Lines 72 ("Most teams skip this step. Raw notes pile up. Decisions and tasks stay buried.")	Vary sentence lengths, consolidate some short sentences

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

Check	Score	Status
Humanizer	35/50	PASS
Stop-Slop	31/50	NEEDS REVISION

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.

[devin-ai-integration]

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)

Dimension	Score
Naturalness	6/10
Specificity	7/10
Voice	5/10
Rhythm	5/10
Conciseness	7/10

High Severity

Line	Original	Pattern	Suggested Rewrite
24–58	All 7 systems use identical ### **N. Title** then **Best for:** structure	#6 Outline Structure + #15 Inline-Header Lists — formulaic, mechanical repetition	Vary the introduction method for each system; integrate "best for" info into flowing sentences instead of bolded headers
40–60	Middle section loses all personality	Voice dropout — shifts from human opening to neutral catalog	Add opinions, first-person reactions, or specific anecdotes in at least some system descriptions

Medium Severity

Line	Original	Pattern	Suggested Rewrite
18	"The real constraint is search"	#1 Significance Inflation — artificial framing	"What matters is search" or just "The constraint is search"
76	"Your capture tool shapes what's possible downstream."	#1 Significance Inflation — inflated claim	"Your capture tool determines which apps you can use later."
76	"Platform-specific formats constrain your options; plain files stay portable."	#7 AI Vocabulary — abstract business-speak	"Platform-specific formats lock you in; markdown files work everywhere."
12	"digging through Slack, your inbox, and two different apps"	#10 Rule of Three — forced three-item list	"digging through Slack and old emails"

Low Severity

Line	Original	Pattern	Suggested Rewrite
34	"### **2. Dedicated Note Apps"	#7 AI Vocabulary — "dedicated" is overused AI word	"### 2. Note Apps (Notion, Obsidian, Evernote, OneNote, Logseq)"
58	"Wiki pages contradict less than scattered files."	#1 Significance — unsupported claim	"Having one maintained page per topic prevents contradictions."
60	"Most teams abandon wikis within six months"	#5 Vague Attribution — unsourced claim presented as fact	"Teams often abandon wikis when contradictions pile up." (or cite a source)
44	"multi-project visibility"	#1 Significance — business-speak abstraction	"see all meetings across projects"

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)

Dimension	Score
Directness	8/10
Rhythm	7/10
Trust	8/10
Authenticity	8/10
Density	7/10

Banned Phrases

Line	Original	Category	Suggested Fix
18	"The real constraint is search"	Throat-clearing ("The real [X] is")	"The constraint is search" or integrate directly

Structural Clichés

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

Rhythm Patterns

Line	Original	Category	Suggested Fix
20	"by date, by person, or by topic"	Three-item list	Use two items: "by date or by topic"
28	"The tool records, transcribes, and summarizes meetings."	Three-item list	"The tool records and transcribes meetings, then generates searchable summaries."
30	"search across meetings, tag by project, and locate statements by date"	Three-item list	"search across meetings by project tag or date"

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

Check	Score	Status
Humanizer	30/50	NEEDS REVISION
Stop-Slop	38/50	PASS

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

[devin-ai-integration]

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)

Dimension	Score
Naturalness	8/10
Specificity	9/10
Voice	7/10
Rhythm	8/10
Conciseness	9/10

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

Line	Original	Pattern	Suggested Rewrite
18	"The constraint that matters is search:"	#1 Significance Inflation — "the constraint that matters" inflates importance	"Search is what makes or breaks a note system:"
20	"...the friction of an unfamiliar search method compounds over time until people stop looking altogether."	#1 Significance Inflation — "compounds over time" adds manufactured depth	"If the search feels wrong, you'll stop using it."
28	"...making results searchable without any manual tagging effort."	#4 Promotional Language — "without any" is promotional phrasing	"...making results searchable without manual tagging."

Low Severity

Line	Original	Pattern	Suggested Rewrite
20	"whether by date, by person, or by topic"	#10 Rule of Three — forced triple grouping	"by date, by person, or topic" (minor)
28	"records, transcribes, and summarizes meetings"	#10 Rule of Three — triple verb list	"records and transcribes meetings"
64	"leaving raw notes to accumulate until decisions become impossible to recover"	#22 Filler Phrase — slightly verbose	"leaving raw notes to pile up until you can't find what was decided"
70	"Char records, transcribes, and saves as markdown"	#10 Rule of Three — triple verb list (echoes line 28)	"Char records and transcribes, saving markdown"

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)

Dimension	Score
Directness	8/10
Rhythm	7/10
Trust	8/10
Authenticity	8/10
Density	7/10

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

Line	Original	Category	Suggested Fix
14	"This guide covers seven systems, explaining what each does well and how to pick one that fits how you work."	Meta-commentary / announcement	"Seven systems: what each does well, and how to pick one."
28	"without any manual tagging effort"	Promotional softening ("without any")	"without manual tagging"

Structural Cliches

Line	Original	Pattern	Fix
16	"Before You Pick a System: How Do You Search for Things?"	Rhetorical setup heading	"How Do You Search for Things?"
34	"(like a personal wiki)"	Hand-holding parenthetical	Remove or integrate: "Obsidian creates a linked web of personal knowledge."

Rhythm Patterns

Issue	Lines	Fix
Three-item verb lists	28, 70	"records, transcribes, and summarizes" / "records, transcribes, and saves" — use two verbs instead
Three-item search list	20	"by date, by person, or by topic" — drop to two
Three-item methodology list	64	"Getting Things Done, PARA, and Zettelkasten" — could trim to two
Three-item tool heading	48	"(Confluence, Notion, GitHub Wiki)" — cosmetic, acceptable

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

Check	Score	Status
Humanizer	41/50	PASS (threshold: 35)
Stop-Slop	38/50	PASS (threshold: 35)

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.

[devin-ai-integration]

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)

Dimension	Score
Naturalness	7/10
Specificity	8/10
Voice	6/10
Rhythm	7/10
Conciseness	8/10

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

Line	Original	Pattern	Suggested Rewrite
14	"Most meeting notes disappear because finding them three weeks later proves nearly impossible"	#22 Filler Phrase — "proves nearly impossible" is wordy	"Most meeting notes disappear because nobody can find them three weeks later"
18	"Once details fade, finding a specific note becomes the problem nobody planned for."	#22 Filler Phrase — "becomes the problem nobody planned for" is wordy	"Once details fade, finding a specific note is the real problem."

Low Severity

Line	Original	Pattern	Suggested Rewrite
25	"Teams that don't want to file notes manually will get the most from these."	#8 Copula Avoidance — avoiding "are best for"	"These work best for teams that don't want to file notes manually."
29	"Markdown imports cleanly into Notion and Obsidian."	#7 AI Vocabulary — "cleanly" is a mild AI-ism	"Markdown imports into Notion and Obsidian without conversion."
35	"Sales, recruiting, and account management teams use this the most."	#5 Vague Attribution (mild) — unsubstantiated claim	"Common for sales, recruiting, and account management teams."
14	"Seven systems follow, with notes on what each does well and how to choose one."	#22 Filler Phrase — announces structure unnecessarily	Delete — the heading already signals what follows.

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)

Dimension	Score
Directness	8/10
Rhythm	7/10
Trust	9/10
Authenticity	8/10
Density	8/10

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

Banned Phrases

Line	Original	Category	Suggested Fix
14	"Seven systems follow, with notes on what each does well and how to choose one."	Rhetorical setup / announcement	Delete — the heading "Seven Systems for Organizing Meeting Notes" already signals this.

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

Issue	Location	Fix
Three-item list	Line 20: "by date, person, or topic"	Consider reducing to two items: "by date or topic"
Punchy product-pitch ending	Line 26: "Char saves markdown locally, so you own the files."	Split: "Char saves markdown locally. You own the files."
Two short punchy sentences in a row	Line 50: "Most teams skip the review. Raw notes pile up and decisions vanish."	Combine: "Most teams skip the review, so raw notes pile up while decisions vanish."
Three+ item list	Line 56: "Open them in Obsidian, Notion, VS Code, or any editor."	"Open them anywhere — Obsidian, Notion, or your preferred editor."

---

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.

Check	Score	Status
Humanizer	36/50	PASS
Stop-Slop	40/50	PASS
Combined	76/100	PASS

[devin-ai-integration]

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)

Dimension	Score
Naturalness	8/10
Specificity	9/10
Voice	7/10
Rhythm	7/10
Conciseness	8/10

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

Line	Original	Pattern	Suggested Rewrite
14	"The core issue isn't writing things down; it's that teams pick note systems without considering how they'll actually retrieve information later, which means the search method determines whether notes get used or abandoned within a few weeks."	#9 Negative Parallelism + #7 AI Vocabulary ("core issue") + #22 Filler ("which means" clause)	"Teams pick note systems without considering retrieval. The search method determines whether notes get used or abandoned within weeks."

Low Severity

Line	Original	Pattern	Suggested Rewrite
14	"The core issue isn't writing things down"	#7 AI Vocabulary — "core" is overused AI word	"The problem isn't writing things down"
52	"Your capture tool determines what you can do with your notes later."	#1 Undue Emphasis — inflated causation	"Your capture tool affects what you can do with your notes later."
48	"The processing step is where most teams fail."	#6 Outline-like Challenges — generic failure statement	"In practice, the processing step rarely happens."

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)

Dimension	Score
Directness	7/10
Rhythm	8/10
Trust	8/10
Authenticity	8/10
Density	6/10

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

Line	Original	Category	Suggested Fix
14	"The core issue isn't writing things down; it's that..."	Binary contrast / "The real [X] is" pattern	"Teams pick note systems without thinking about retrieval."
38	"This is particularly useful when you need to track..."	Filler adverb ("particularly useful when")	"Use this to track how decisions evolved..."
44	"This sounds too simple to work, but people who already live in their inbox find it surprisingly effective."	Hedging announcement	"People who live in their inbox find this effective."

Structural Cliches

Line	Pattern	Problem	Fix
14	"The core issue isn't X; it's Y"	Binary contrast formula	State Y directly
39	"The spreadsheet doesn't replace your notes; it just makes them findable."	Binary contrast ("doesn't X; just Y")	"The spreadsheet makes your notes findable."
52	"Platform-specific formats create lock-in; plain text files give you options."	Mechanical opposition	"Plain text files give you options." (let reader infer the contrast)

Rhythm Patterns

Issue	Location	Fix
"which means" / "which matters" wordy connectors	Lines 14, 24	Split into separate sentences
Some long sentences could be broken up	Lines 36, 40	Add a period mid-sentence for rhythm variation

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

Check	Score	Result
Humanizer (24 AI patterns)	39/50	PASS
Stop-Slop (phrases, structures, rhythm)	37/50	PASS

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.

[devin-ai-integration]

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)

Dimension	Score
Naturalness	8/10
Specificity	9/10
Voice	9/10
Rhythm	7/10
Conciseness	7/10

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

Line	Original	Pattern	Suggested Rewrite
12	"you spend twenty minutes digging through Slack, your inbox, and two different apps"	#10 Rule of Three — three-item list (Slack, inbox, apps)	"you spend twenty minutes digging through Slack and your inbox before giving up"
18	"whether you think in dates, people, or topics"	#10 Rule of Three — three-item grouping	"whether you think in dates or topics"

Low Severity

Line	Original	Pattern	Suggested Rewrite
14	"proves nearly impossible"	#22 Filler / #23 Hedging — "proves nearly" is wordy	"is nearly impossible" or just "is impossible"
28	"which some teams find more useful than the flexibility of the other two"	#22 Filler — slightly verbose qualifier	"which trades flexibility for structure"
36	"Opening a contact in your CRM should show the complete conversation history"	#7 AI Vocabulary — "complete" as absolute intensifier	"should show the conversation history"
52	"Char saves markdown locally, and those same files open in Obsidian, Notion, VS Code, or any editor"	#10 Rule of Three — three named editors + catch-all	"those same files open in Obsidian, Notion, or any editor"

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)

Dimension	Score
Directness	8/10
Rhythm	7/10
Trust	8/10
Authenticity	8/10
Density	7/10

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

Line	Pattern	Problem	Fix
14	"even though people wrote them down at the time"	Mild redundancy with prior sentence (both say "three weeks later")	Tighten: "even though they wrote them down"

Rhythm Patterns

Issue	Location	Fix
Three-item lists appear 3 times	Lines 12, 18, 52	Reduce to two items in at least one instance
"complete" as absolute word	Line 36	Remove — "conversation history" is sufficient
Paragraph 2 echoes paragraph 1	Lines 12-14 both mention "three weeks later"	Vary the timeframe reference or cut from one

---

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.

[devin-ai-integration]

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)

Dimension	Score
Naturalness	7/10
Specificity	5/10
Voice	6/10
Rhythm	7/10
Conciseness	8/10

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

Line	Original	Pattern	Suggested Rewrite
14	"Meeting notes disappear because teams pick systems based on capture features and ignore retrieval entirely."	#5 Vague Attributions — unsourced claim about "teams"	"Meeting notes disappear when the system is chosen for capture features and retrieval is an afterthought."
20	"most teams underestimate how often meetings end without anyone taking notes at all"	#5 Vague Attributions — "most teams" with no source	"meetings regularly end with no written record"
44	"Most teams write notes elsewhere and import them because CRM text editors are clunky for real-time use."	#5 Vague Attributions — "Most teams" again	"Sales teams typically write notes in Google Docs during calls, then copy key points into Salesforce afterward."

Medium Severity

Line	Original	Pattern	Suggested Rewrite
45-46	"Active wikis always have someone reviewing and correcting content on a schedule."	#5 Vague Attributions — unsourced absolute claim ("always")	"Successful wikis need a designated editor who reviews contributions regularly."
50	"Teams pick note tools based on features and then search using whatever method the tool provides."	#5 Vague Attributions — generic "teams"	"Most people pick note tools by comparing feature lists."
54	"Most teams skip the processing step."	#5 Vague Attributions — "Most teams" repeated	"In practice, people skip the processing step."
57	"format portability matters more than people expect when first picking a system"	#5 Vague Attributions — who expects what?	"format portability becomes critical during tool migration"

Low Severity

Line	Original	Pattern	Suggested Rewrite
14	"ignore retrieval entirely"	#7 AI Vocabulary — "entirely" is minor filler	"ignore retrieval"
29	"feed directly into"	#22 Filler Phrase — "directly" is minor filler	"feed into"
53	"any meaningful structure"	Minor #4 Promotional language	"any structure"

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)

Dimension	Score
Directness	7/10
Rhythm	5/10
Trust	8/10
Authenticity	7/10
Density	6/10

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

Line	Original	Category	Suggested Fix
25	"The capture method affects downstream organization."	Business jargon ("downstream")	"The capture method affects later organization."

Structural Clichés

Line	Original	Problem	Fix
14	"Meeting notes disappear because teams pick systems based on capture features and ignore retrieval entirely."	Implicit binary contrast (capture vs. retrieval)	"Teams pick systems for capture. That's why notes disappear — retrieval gets ignored."
25-27	"A transcript becomes searchable immediately, while manual notes require someone to write them during the meeting, and most teams underestimate how often meetings end without anyone taking notes at all."	Three-part comparison	"Transcripts become searchable immediately. Manual notes require writing during the meeting, and most teams underestimate how often nobody takes notes."
27-28	"Automated recordings produce complete transcripts, but the resulting volume of unstructured text requires its own organization system."	Binary setup (good thing, but...)	"Automated recordings produce complete transcripts. The volume of unstructured text requires organization."
50-51	"Teams pick note tools based on features and then search using whatever method the tool provides. The instinct to search by dates, people, or topics should drive the tool choice instead."	Binary contrast (features vs. search patterns)	"The instinct to search by dates, people, or topics should drive tool choice. Teams do the opposite."

Rhythm Patterns

Issue	Location	Fix
Three-item lists of tools	Line 29: "Notion...Obsidian...Logseq"; Line 41: "Salesforce, HubSpot, Attio, and Folk"; Line 44: "Confluence, Notion, and GitHub Wiki"	Reduce to two examples or integrate differently
Three-item search criteria	Lines 50-51: "dates, people, or topics"; Line 53: "participant name, date range, or subject keywords"	Use two items instead
Three-part failure cascade	Lines 54-55: "Raw notes accumulate, the weekly review never happens, and the result is..."	"Raw notes accumulate and the weekly review never happens."
Metronomic tool descriptions	Lines 29-34: each tool follows "X does Y, Z does W" pattern	Vary structure — lead with use case, not tool name
Four-part wiki failure	Lines 44-46: "contribute...contradictions pile up...nobody fixes them...stop checking"	Shorten: "contribute briefly, contradictions accumulate, and the wiki dies within months"
Parenthetical enumeration	Line 36: "(date, attendees, project, decisions, action items, notes link)" — 6 items	Trim to 4-5 items
Four-item list	Line 57: "Obsidian, Notion, VS Code, or any editor"	"Obsidian, Notion, or any editor"

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

[devin-ai-integration]

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)

Dimension	Score
Naturalness	8/10
Specificity	9/10
Voice	7/10
Rhythm	8/10
Conciseness	9/10

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

Line	Original	Pattern	Suggested Rewrite
18	"Most teams underestimate how often meetings end without anyone taking notes at all, which is the core problem automated transcription solves."	#5 Vague Attribution + #1 Significance Inflation — "Most teams" without evidence; "the core problem" inflates significance	"Meetings often end without notes. Automated transcription fixes that."

Low Severity

Line	Original	Pattern	Suggested Rewrite
18	"requiring manual note-taking"	#3 Superficial -ing — participial phrase tacked on	"without needing manual notes"

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)

Dimension	Score
Directness	7/10
Rhythm	5/10
Trust	6/10
Authenticity	7/10
Density	7/10

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

Line	Original	Category	Suggested Fix
14	"Teams pick note systems for capture features and skip retrieval design."	Telling instead of showing	Delete — the opening already demonstrates the problem
14	"How you search determines whether you'll use the tool after the first week."	Quotable / pull-quote warning	"Search method determines long-term use" or integrate into context
18	"which is the core problem automated transcription solves"	Announcement structure	"Meetings often end without notes. Automated transcription fixes this."
24	"reconstructing past rationale become straightforward with a centralized index"	Business jargon	"A centralized index makes it easy to track decisions and find old reasoning."
29	"Most teams skip processing."	Vague attribution	"Teams skip processing" or provide evidence
34	"Most teams change their note-taking setup every couple of years."	Vague attribution	"Teams change note-taking setups every few years" or cite source

Structural Cliches

Line	Pattern	Problem	Fix
14	"pick systems for capture features and ignore retrieval"	Binary antithesis (pick X / ignore Y)	State the point directly: "Teams ignore retrieval when picking note systems."
28	"Wiki-style tools... require a designated content owner" → "Without clear ownership..." → "Active wikis always have someone..."	Binary turn (without X... with Y) as rhetorical scaffolding	Flatten into direct statements

Rhythm Patterns

Issue	Location	Fix
Three-item lists	Line 23 ("dates, people, or topics"), Line 26 ("person, date, or subject"), Line 33 ("Obsidian, Notion, VS Code, or any editor")	Reduce to two items or rephrase
"Most teams" appears 4 times	Lines 18, 26, 29, 34	Vary attribution or cut
Metronomic sentence lengths	Lines 25-27 (email section), Lines 29-30 (GTD section)	Vary sentence length unpredictably
Announcement/restatement openers	Lines 14, 18 (final sentence), 30 (section heading restated)	Cut — let the content speak
Punchy ending pattern	Line 34 ("Proprietary formats make migrations painful.")	Vary the ending or add a following sentence

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.

Check	Score	Verdict
Humanizer	41/50	PASS
Stop-Slop	32/50	NEEDS REVISION