Run any Skill in Manus with one click

stop-slop

Stars14

Forks1

UpdatedJuly 17, 2026 at 10:57

Review public-facing prose for formulaic AI writing patterns without changing technical meaning. Skip source code and precision-first technical artifacts unless the user explicitly asks for a prose pass.

Installation

Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.

Run Skill in Manus

Source

joaofnds

joaofnds/dotfiles

View GitHub Repository View Creator Repositories

Download

Run Skill in Manus

Related occupationsSOC

Based on SOC occupation classification

Technical WritersArts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Occupations·SOC 27-3042

File Explorer

4 files

SKILL.md

readonly

name	stop-slop
description	Review public-facing prose for formulaic AI writing patterns without changing technical meaning. Skip source code and precision-first technical artifacts unless the user explicitly asks for a prose pass.
metadata	{"trigger":"Writing prose, editing drafts, reviewing content for AI patterns","author":"Hardik Pandya (https://hvpandya.com)"}

Stop Slop

Remove formulaic AI writing patterns from public-facing prose. Technical accuracy, logical qualification, project terminology, and the author's voice outrank every pattern below. Treat patterns as review signals, not bans.

Core Rules

Cut filler phrases. Remove throat-clearing openers and emphasis crutches. Keep adverbs that carry necessary degree, timing, or uncertainty. See references/phrases.md.
Break formulaic structures. Rewrite repeated binary contrasts, negative listings, dramatic fragments, rhetorical setups, and false agency when they are mannerisms rather than the clearest logic. See references/structures.md.
Prefer active voice. Use passive voice when the actor is unknown, irrelevant, or deliberately de-emphasized. Do not force a human subject into technical statements.
Be specific. No vague declaratives ("The reasons are structural"). Name the specific thing. No lazy extremes ("every," "always," "never") doing vague work.
Put the reader in the room. No narrator-from-a-distance voice. "You" beats "People." Specifics beat abstractions.
Vary rhythm. Mix sentence lengths and structures. Do not change a complete three-part list or a useful em dash merely to satisfy a pattern check.
Trust readers. State facts directly. Skip softening, justification, hand-holding.
Cut quotables. If it sounds like a pull-quote, rewrite it.

Quick Checks

Before delivering prose:

Any empty adverbs? Cut them.
Any avoidable passive voice? Name the actor.
Does false agency hide relevant responsibility? Name the actor; otherwise keep precise technical metaphors.
Repeated sentence openings? Vary them.
Any "here's what/this/that" throat-clearing? Cut to the point.
Repeated "not X, but Y" contrasts? Keep only those that express real logic.
Three consecutive sentences match length? Break one.
Paragraph ends with punchy one-liner? Vary it.
Repeated em dashes used as rhythm crutches? Replace them.
Vague declarative ("The implications are significant")? Name the specific implication.
Narrator-from-a-distance ("Nobody designed this")? Put the reader in the scene.
Meta-joiners ("The rest of this essay...")? Delete. Let the essay move.

Scoring

Rate 1-10 on each dimension:

Dimension	Question
Directness	Statements or announcements?
Rhythm	Varied or metronomic?
Trust	Respects reader intelligence?
Authenticity	Sounds human?
Density	Anything cuttable?

Below 35/50: revise.

Examples

See references/examples.md for before/after transformations.

License

MIT

More from this repository

same repository

panel-review

joaofnds/dotfiles

Run a five-axis panel review of a completed change — code style, architecture, spec conformance, security, testing — with parallel specialist reviewers, adversarial verification of major findings, and a self-contained fix report written to .boris/reviews/. Invoke on "panel review", "full review", "review this across all axes", or when a substantial unit of work needs a thorough pre-merge check. Skip for small plan-step reviews — spawn the code-reviewer agent directly. Skip for a single-axis check — the narrower built-in (/security-review, /code-review) is cheaper; panel-review is for all five axes plus the refactoring track, the kill step, and a durable report. Work built THIS session is fine to panel-review; /adversarial-review is the lighter single-reviewer check for work that doesn't warrant five axes.

2026-07-2514

dream

joaofnds/dotfiles

Consolidation pass over this project's native Claude memory store ($CLAUDE_CONFIG_DIR/projects/<slug>/memory/, default ~/.claude/…): merges duplicate notes, resolves contradictions, prunes stale entries, repairs [[wikilinks]], and rebuilds the MEMORY.md index. Invoke when the store has grown noisy or repetitive, or for periodic cleanup: "dream", "consolidate memory", "clean up project memory". Not for authoring new memories or improving skills/rules — that's kaizen.

2026-07-2314

adversarial-review

joaofnds/dotfiles

Independent, unprimed review of work you produced THIS session — the brief withholds your conclusions so the reviewer reaches its own verdict; findings are relayed in its words. Invoke on "adversarial review", "red-team this", "unbiased second opinion on what I just did". For code you did NOT write (PR review, external audit) → /review or /code-review instead.

2026-07-1714

build

joaofnds/dotfiles

Pick up an implementation plan written by /plan (or any .boris/plans/*.md plan) and execute it faithfully in a fresh session. Invoke when the user points at a plan file and wants it built — "build @.boris/plans/...", "implement this plan", "resume", "pick up where we left off". Takes the plan path as an argument; if none is given, list the plan files in .boris/plans/ (those without a -spec/-options/-grilled/-diagnosis suffix) and ask which one.

2026-07-1714

debug

joaofnds/dotfiles

Investigate a bug or unexpected behavior down to a confirmed root cause. Invoke at the START of looking into a failure, before the cause is known: "debug this", "why is this failing", "investigate this bug". Confirms the cause but lands no fix (/plan → /build) and writes no durable report (/diagnose, run after). Dumping in-flight state to a fresh session → /handoff.

2026-07-1714

diagnose

joaofnds/dotfiles

Write a read-only diagnosis report — root cause, rules broken, five-whys — to a durable file once this session's investigation has concluded (cause confirmed, or leads exhausted and best hypothesis recorded). Invoke on "diagnose this", "root-cause report", "document what went wrong". Proposes NO fixes — that's /plan, run later off the report. Fix approach already settled → /plan; cause still under investigation → /debug; pausing that investigation → /handoff.

2026-07-1714

name	stop-slop
description	Review public-facing prose for formulaic AI writing patterns without changing technical meaning. Skip source code and precision-first technical artifacts unless the user explicitly asks for a prose pass.
metadata	{"trigger":"Writing prose, editing drafts, reviewing content for AI patterns","author":"Hardik Pandya (https://hvpandya.com)"}

Stop Slop

Core Rules

Cut filler phrases. Remove throat-clearing openers and emphasis crutches. Keep adverbs that carry necessary degree, timing, or uncertainty. See references/phrases.md.
Break formulaic structures. Rewrite repeated binary contrasts, negative listings, dramatic fragments, rhetorical setups, and false agency when they are mannerisms rather than the clearest logic. See references/structures.md.
Prefer active voice. Use passive voice when the actor is unknown, irrelevant, or deliberately de-emphasized. Do not force a human subject into technical statements.
Be specific. No vague declaratives ("The reasons are structural"). Name the specific thing. No lazy extremes ("every," "always," "never") doing vague work.
Put the reader in the room. No narrator-from-a-distance voice. "You" beats "People." Specifics beat abstractions.
Vary rhythm. Mix sentence lengths and structures. Do not change a complete three-part list or a useful em dash merely to satisfy a pattern check.
Trust readers. State facts directly. Skip softening, justification, hand-holding.
Cut quotables. If it sounds like a pull-quote, rewrite it.

Quick Checks

Before delivering prose:

Any empty adverbs? Cut them.
Any avoidable passive voice? Name the actor.
Does false agency hide relevant responsibility? Name the actor; otherwise keep precise technical metaphors.
Repeated sentence openings? Vary them.
Any "here's what/this/that" throat-clearing? Cut to the point.
Repeated "not X, but Y" contrasts? Keep only those that express real logic.
Three consecutive sentences match length? Break one.
Paragraph ends with punchy one-liner? Vary it.
Repeated em dashes used as rhythm crutches? Replace them.
Vague declarative ("The implications are significant")? Name the specific implication.
Narrator-from-a-distance ("Nobody designed this")? Put the reader in the scene.
Meta-joiners ("The rest of this essay...")? Delete. Let the essay move.

Scoring

Rate 1-10 on each dimension:

Dimension	Question
Directness	Statements or announcements?
Rhythm	Varied or metronomic?
Trust	Respects reader intelligence?
Authenticity	Sounds human?
Density	Anything cuttable?

Below 35/50: revise.

Examples

See references/examples.md for before/after transformations.

License

MIT