ai-slop-audit

name	ai-slop-audit
description	Use when auditing an existing proposal artefact for AI slop after a major iteration or before submission; use anti-ai-slop instead as the live drafting guardrail.
metadata	{"portable":true,"compatible_with":["claude-code","codex"]}

AI Slop Audit

Acknowledgement: Shared by Peter Bamuhigire, techguypeter.com, [phone].

The detector. Given any proposal artefact, it decides how strongly it reads as AI slop, names exactly why, and says how to fix each finding. Production-side prevention is the companion anti-ai-slop skill, and the reasoning gate is critical-analysis-business-logic.

Use When

• Audit a completed proposal section, EoI, tender response, price narrative, or full bid after a major iteration.
• Run the final A/B/C/F gate before assembly or submission.

Do Not Use When

• Use anti-ai-slop while creating content; this skill assesses a concrete artefact in read-only mode.
• Do not grade material that cannot be inspected; return an unassessed scope instead.

Inputs

Artefact	Source/provider	Required?	Missing-input behaviour
Proposal artefact and intended audience	Proposal lead	Yes	Stop and request the artefact or identify the inaccessible scope as not assessed.
Sources for factual claims	Bid evidence register or verified provider	Conditional	Mark factual verification not assessed; do not clear a blocking claim.

Outputs

Artefact	Consumer	Acceptance condition
Graded slop audit	Author and release owner	Verdict, genericness score, evidence, fix, and unassessed checks agree with the grading rules.

Evidence Produced

Evidence	Consumer	Acceptance condition
Finding register and A/B/C/F verdict	Proposal release gate	Every finding cites a line, phrase, figure, source, or other observable artefact evidence.

Capability Contract

Default to read-only. Read and search are required; execution or network checks may verify claims when authorised. Never edit the audited artefact unless remediation is separately requested, and never submit it externally.

Degraded Mode

When a file, source, renderer, or verification capability is unavailable, mark that check not assessed and return the narrowest evidence-backed grade possible. Do not lower risk or invent findings to fill the report.

Decision Rules

Evidence	Action or grade	Failure or risk avoided
Fabricated claim, citation, client, statute, or no substantive content	Grade F and block release	Unsupported submission
Multiple non-blocking markers or weak intent	Grade C and require rework	High reviewer burden
Minor isolated markers only	Grade B and list targeted fixes	Unnecessary full rewrite
No blockers, low genericness, clear intent	Grade A and release	Invented audit findings

Workflow

1. Classify the artefact and define the inspected scope.
2. Run applicable mechanical checks, then review substance, intent, specificity, and hard cases.
3. Stop and grade F when any blocking marker is evidenced.
4. Recover from incomplete access by marking checks not assessed, not by assuming a pass.
5. Issue the evidence-backed report and preserve authored material worth keeping.

Quality Standards

• Findings are traceable, severity is consistent with the rubric, and inaccessible checks remain visible.
• A clean artefact may receive grade A; the audit never invents debt.

Anti-Patterns

• Reporting a vague “AI feel”. Fix: cite the exact phrase, line, figure, or formatting pattern.
• Padding a clean audit with invented defects. Fix: allow a grade A result.
• Editing during a read-only audit. Fix: separate diagnosis from authorised remediation.
• Treating an inaccessible citation check as passed. Fix: mark it not assessed.
• Removing useful authored material during cleanup. Fix: record what must be preserved.

References

• Anti-slop production guardrail
• Critical analysis and business logic gate

When this runs

Cadence: run after EACH proposal section or major iteration. This is the default mode. Whenever a meaningful unit of work is finished, that is a drafted cover letter, an executive summary, an understanding-of-assignment section, a methodology, a work plan, a financial proposal, or a significant revision, run this audit on what was just produced before moving to the next section. Log the verdict. If the verdict is F (Blocked), do not progress to the next section until the blocking findings are fixed. Treat it like a quality gate that runs at every checkpoint, not a one-time review the night before the deadline.

Also auto-run on request: when the user asks to analyse, review, evaluate, audit, critique, score, or de-slop any proposal, Expression of Interest, tender response, cover letter, executive summary, methodology, work plan, team composition, financial proposal, capability statement, or business document, or asks "does this look AI-generated?" or "why does this read off?".

Also run as the final gate before assembling or submitting any proposal.

The companion anti-ai-slop skill runs continuously while content is written; this audit runs at each checkpoint to catch what slipped through.

What slop is (the yardstick)

Low-quality content produced in quantity by AI and pushed at people who did not ask for it (Merriam-Webster 2025 Word of the Year, verified). Three diagnostic properties (Kommers et al., arXiv 2601.06060): superficial competence, asymmetric effort, mass producibility. The human tell is absence of intent. In a proposal, slop is text that could be submitted to any client for any assignment. You are measuring how strongly an artefact exhibits these.

Audit method, layered, cheapest first

Step 1 — Identify the artefact and load the right checklist

Map the artefact to its proposal type: cover letter, executive summary, understanding of assignment, firm or consultant profile, relevant experience, methodology, team composition, work plan, financial proposal, or a full bid. A full proposal usually spans several. Audit each section.

Step 2 — Automated gates (machine-checkable). Any hit is hard evidence

Run every applicable check. A hit on a blocking marker (✗) fails the artefact outright.

• 🤖 Focal-word density: delve, tapestry, realm, navigate, underscore, pivotal, intricate, leverage, foster, harness, synergy, embark, robust, vibrant, holistic, seamless, and the rest of the banned list, more than two per 500 words.
• 🤖 Em-dash density above one per paragraph; reflexive rule-of-three; "it is not X, it is Y" repetition; uniform 15 to 25 word sentences (low burstiness).
• 🤖 Transition clichés: "in today's fast-paced world", "let us dive in", "in conclusion", "world-class", "best-in-class", "cutting-edge" as unsupported self-praise.
• 🤖 Mechanical formatting: Title-Case headers everywhere, excessive bold, decorative emoji, leftover tool markup ("oaicite", "contentReference").
• ✗ 🤖 Broken or fabricated citations: dead URLs, invalid DOI or ISBN, fabricated statistics, invented client names, invented court cases or statutes, utm_source parameters copied in.
• French: "plongeons dans", "il est important de noter que", "force est de constater", filler connectors.

Step 3 — Structural score → 0 to 100 genericness

Combine burstiness, focal-word density, duplication, and template similarity into a single genericness score. Higher means more slop-like. Report the score and its drivers.

Step 4 — Human-judgement review (the checklist no tool replaces)

• 👁 Substance: what does this section assert or decide that required real work? If nothing, it is slop.
• 👁 Intent and authored voice: is there a point of view, or is it relentlessly positive and free of any stance?
• 👁 Specificity: real named clients, projects, methods, and numbers, or generic placeholders that fit any bid?
• 👁 Hard parts: are risks, dependencies, assumptions, and the counter-case handled?
• 👁 Proposal-specific findings (per section):
  • Cover letter and executive summary: generic value proposition that would fit any firm; inflated superlatives; no named client problem; hollow analogies.
  • Understanding of assignment: "we understand" without proof; no reference to the actual Terms of Reference, sector, or constraint.
  • Relevant experience: activities listed instead of outcomes; unverifiable or invented client references, figures, or awards.
  • Methodology and work plan: no visible logic (evidence → warrant → assumptions → counter-case → implication); frameworks used as decoration; methodology, staffing, timeline, and budget that do not tell one achievable delivery story.
  • Financial proposal: round-number filler; fees inconsistent with the staffing schedule and work plan; reimbursables that do not match the method.

Cross-check the reasoning failures with critical-analysis-business-logic, which is the complementary gate for evidence, business sense, feasibility, and achievability.

Scoring and verdict

Grade	Meaning	Trigger
A — Clean	No blocking hits; genericness low; substance and intent present	submit
B — Minor slop	A few automated hits, no blockers; some genericness	fix listed items
C — Slopy	Multiple automated hits or weak substance and intent	rework before submission
F — Blocked	Any ✗ blocker (fabricated statistic, citation, client, court case, or statute; or no substance at all)	do not submit

Output format (the audit report)

# AI Slop Audit — <artefact name> — <day-month-year>
Verdict: <A/B/C/F>   Genericness score: <0–100>
Artefact type(s): <...>

## Blocking findings (✗) — must fix
- [marker] <what was found> · evidence: <quote / line / URL> · fix: <concrete action>

## Slop findings (by severity)
- [marker] <finding> · evidence: <...> · fix: <...>

## What is good (so it is not stripped in the fix)
- <substantive, specific, authored elements worth keeping>

## Recommended next step
- <rework / targeted fixes / submit>

Discipline (anti-hallucination, applies to the audit itself)

• Every finding cites concrete evidence from the artefact: a quote, a line, a figure, a URL. No finding without evidence.
• Do not invent a flaw to pad the report. "This section is clean" is a valid and wanted verdict.
• Mark inferences "(inference)"; never present a guess as a measured fact.

See also

• anti-ai-slop — the prevention companion; write proposal content so slop never appears.
• critical-analysis-business-logic — the complementary reasoning, business-sense, feasibility, and achievability gate.
• east-african-english and language-standards — house tone and spelling, applied on top of this skill.