Language Check

Language Check

Analyze files for non-inclusive language, with emphasis on understanding context before flagging issues.

Philosophy

This is not a linter. A linter finds strings; this skill understands code.

The goal is to:

1. Understand what the code/​content is doing
2. Consider who will read or use it
3. Identify language that could exclude or harm
4. Provide contextual, thoughtful suggestions

Pattern matching helps find candidates, but your job is to analyze and reason.

Scope

The user may specify a file path, glob pattern, or directory. If not specified, ask what they'd like to check.

Config Integration

Before starting, check for .inclusion-config.md in the project root.

If it exists:

1. Read scope decisions and acknowledged findings
2. Skip any acknowledged findings (note them in output)
3. Respect priority settings
4. Note at the top of output: "Config loaded: .inclusion-config.md"

If config says certain checks are out of scope, still run language checks (core dignity principles), but respect acknowledged individual findings.

Process

1. Read and Understand

First, read the files to understand:

• What is this code/​content for?
• Who is the audience? (developers? end users? both?)
• What's the tone and style?

2. Analyze Holistically

As you read, look for language issues in context:

Gendered language - Does this assume gender? Use "guys", "he/​she", gendered job titles?

• Consider: Who reads this? How might non-male or non-binary people feel?

Ableist language - Does this use disability as metaphor? ("crazy", "blind to", "lame")

• Consider: How does this land for someone with that condition?

Racially loaded terms - Does this use terms with harmful history? ("whitelist", "master/​slave")

• Consider: What's the impact of normalizing these metaphors?

Dismissive language - Does this assume things are "easy" or "obvious"?

• Consider: Easy for whom? What if someone struggles with this?

3. Apply Context

Not every match is a problem. Use judgment:

Probably fine:

• "master's degree" (academic term)
• "blind study" (scientific term)
• "Master" in a proper noun (MasterCard, Scrum Master as job title)
• Historical quotes or references
• Code interfacing with external systems that use these terms

Probably worth flagging:

• Variable names: whitelist, masterDB, slaveNode
• Comments addressing readers: "Hey guys", "obviously you'll want to..."
• Documentation: "simply click", "just run this command"
• Error messages users will see

4. Suggest Thoughtfully

Don't just say "change X to Y". Explain:

• Why this matters for this specific context
• What the impact might be
• A suggestion that fits the code's style

Reference

For comprehensive term lists, see references/​language-terms.md. Use this as a guide, not a checklist.

Output Format

Keep it compact. This is a "fast" check—users want findings, not essays.

## Language Analysis: [path]

[1-2 sentences: What is this? Who's the audience? What's the main issue pattern?]

---

### Racially Loaded Terms (4 issues)

Terms with slavery/​racial connotations that normalize harmful metaphors.

| Location | Term | Suggestion |
|----------|------|------------|
| file.tsx:7 | `whitelist` | `allowlist` |
| file.tsx:8 | `master/​slave` | `primary/​replica` |

### Ableist Language (3 issues)

Uses disability as shorthand for "broken" or "bad."

| Location | Term | Suggestion |
|----------|------|------------|
| file.tsx:92 | `sanityCheck` | `validateData` |
| docs.md:57 | "crazy" | "unexpected" |

### Gendered Language (2 issues)

Assumes male as default.

| Location | Term | Suggestion |
|----------|------|------------|
| docs.md:3 | "Hey guys" | "Hello everyone" |
| docs.md:65 | "businessmen" | "professionals" |

### Dismissive Language (3 issues)

Minimizes difficulty, makes struggling users feel inadequate.

| Location | Term | Suggestion |
|----------|------|------------|
| docs.md:7 | "super simple" | (remove) |
| docs.md:11 | "Obviously" | "We recommend" |

---

### Exceptions

- `Mastercard` in docs.md:36 — brand name, fine

### Summary

**22 issues** across 2 files. Priority: user-facing docs (hostile tone in troubleshooting section), then racially loaded variable names.

Output Guidelines

• Use tables for findings—one row per issue, not a paragraph
• One-sentence category intros max—explain why it matters, then list findings
• Skip code blocks unless context is truly ambiguous
• No individual "Analysis" paragraphs—the table columns say enough
• Insights only when non-obvious—skip the insight if it's just restating why the category matters
• Summary is a TL;DR—total count, priority, where to start

What Makes This Different From a Linter

A linter would flag every instance of "master". You should:

1. Understand intent - Is this a database replica config or someone's job title?
2. Consider audience - Is this internal code comments or user-facing docs?
3. Weigh impact - Will changing this break external integrations?
4. Suggest appropriately - Match the codebase's style and conventions

Your value is judgment, not detection.