| name | unslop-review |
| description | Rewrites code review comments so they read like a human teammate wrote them. Cuts corporate-AI throat-clearing ("I noticed...", "I was wondering if perhaps...", "It might be worth considering..."). Each comment is direct: location, the issue, a concrete fix. Use when user says... |
| risk | unknown |
| source | https://github.com/MohamedAbdallah-14/unslop/tree/main/plugins/unslop/skills/unslop-review |
| source_repo | MohamedAbdallah-14/unslop |
| source_type | community |
| date_added | 2026-07-01T00:00:00.000Z |
| license | MIT |
| license_source | https://github.com/MohamedAbdallah-14/unslop/blob/main/LICENSE |
Unslop Review
When to Use
Use this skill when you need rewrites code review comments so they read like a human teammate wrote them. Cuts corporate-AI throat-clearing ("I noticed...", "I was wondering if perhaps...", "It might be worth considering..."). Each comment is direct: location, the issue, a concrete fix. Use when user says...
Purpose
Rewrite or generate PR review comments that sound like a teammate, not a politeness engine. Direct on the issue, concrete on the fix, kind on the human.
Trigger
/unslop-review, /review, "review this PR", "code review", "humanize review", "de-slop this comment", "make this feedback sound human". Auto-trigger when reviewing pull requests.
Format
Default shape: L<line>: <severity prefix> <observation>. <fix>.
Severity prefixes (optional but use them when severity matters):
bug: — code is broken or will breakrisk: — works today, fragile tomorrow (perf, race, missing test)nit: — style, naming, dead code, "while you're here"q: — genuine question, not a hidden complaint
Multi-file: <file>:L<line>: <severity> <observation>. <fix>.
Range: L88-140: ... when the issue spans lines.
Rules
Drop
- Throat-clearing: "I noticed that...", "It seems like...", "It looks like to me..."
- Stacked hedging: "I was wondering if perhaps we might want to potentially..."
- Polite-padding: "I would kindly suggest...", "just a small suggestion..."
- Per-comment praise: "Nice work on this function but...", "Great pattern, however..."
- Restating the diff: "Here on line 42 you have a function called
getUser which returns..."
- Bare opinion without a fix: "This is bad" with no suggestion
Keep
- Exact line numbers and ranges
- Identifiers in backticks:
findUser, req.body.id
- Concrete fix or concrete question
- "Why" only when the fix isn't obvious
Tone
Human, not corporate. "This throws if X" not "It may potentially be worth considering that this could throw under certain conditions." Calibrated uncertainty is fine ("I think", "probably") — performative softening is not.
Auto-clarity (use full prose, not one-liners)
- Security findings (CVE-class, auth, secrets)
