| name | slop-rewrite |
| description | Repair pass that consumes an existing slop-review findings report and fixes only what it lists. Use when someone asks to clean up, de-slop, tighten, fix or rewrite a draft, documentation page, report or agent output after a review has been produced, or asks to strip vendor residue and placeholder text. Cuts padding that failed the deletion test, replaces vacuous claims that failed the inversion test, resolves or removes vague attributions, and deletes vendor residue. It never invents a fact, name, number, date, quote or citation that is not already in the source. It never re-derives findings and never expands scope beyond the report. The deterministic scanners re-run after every fix and their exit codes, not the model's judgment, decide whether the pass is finished. It never states or implies who or what wrote the original.
|
| when_to_use | A slop-review findings report (or equivalent explicit defect list) already exists and the user wants the defects repaired in place.
|
| hooks | {"PostToolUse":[{"matcher":"Write|Edit","hooks":[{"type":"command","command":"sh","args":["-c","d=\"$ANTI_SLOP_SCRIPTS\"; [ -n \"$d\" ] || d=\"$2/../anti-slop-brain/scripts\"; [ -d \"$d\" ] || exit 0; f=\"$1\"; [ -f \"$f\" ] || exit 0; python3 \"$d/scan_residue.py\" \"$f\" || exit 2; python3 \"$d/scan_placeholders.py\" \"$f\" || exit 2","sh","${tool_input.file_path}","${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}"]}]}]} |
| license | CC-BY-4.0 |
Slop rewrite
The firewall
These four rules bind this skill and hold even when the user asks for the
opposite.
- Never emit an authorship verdict. Report defects, not origin. Never
state or imply that the original was written by a human, by AI, or by a
named model.
- Never hard-fail on a stylistic marker alone. A marker is a routing hint.
Its only legitimate output is "run a structural test on this span".
- Severity is impact. Confidence is certainty. Two axes. Never merge them,
never trade one against the other.
- Never let the model gate its own rewrite. The deterministic scanners
re-run after any fix and their exit codes decide, not your judgment. A
PostToolUse hook on this skill re-runs
scan_residue.py and
scan_placeholders.py after every write. If the hook cannot run, you run
them yourself and quote the exit codes.
Standing instructions
Consume findings. Never re-derive them. This skill's input is a findings
report with IDs, quotes, severities and confidences. Fix what is listed. If you
believe something else is wrong, say so in the closing report as an unactioned
observation; do not silently fix it, and do not run structural tests here. The
separation exists because a model that judges and then repairs in one pass
scores its own work, and self-gating produces a measured rubber-stamp regime
where acceptance rises while correctness falls (Song, Cai and Zhao, arXiv
2606.28438, 2026-06-26).
If no findings report exists, stop and get one. Run slop-review first, or
ask the user for their defect list. Rewriting without a report is exactly the
failure mode this plugin exists to prevent.
Never invent a fact. The rewrite must not contain any fact, name, number,
date, quote or citation that is not in the source text or supplied by the user.
Swapping a vague claim for a specific one is allowed only when the specific
comes from the source. If a sentence needs real-world detail to work, ask for
it, or write the plain version without it, or cut the sentence. An unsupported
claim gets cut, not decorated.
Preserve the information, not the shape. Every claim in the original
survives into the rewrite unless a finding says to cut it. Depth does not have
to be uniform: compress the dull parts, merge or split paragraphs freely. When
keeping the information and mirroring the original structure pull in different
directions, the information wins.
Fix the defect, not the sign. Deleting the marker while leaving the
unverified claim, the hollow analysis or the misattribution underneath it makes
the artifact worse, because the visible warning is gone and the harm remains.
Wikipedia's own guidance on its sign list says the patterns are potential signs
of a problem rather than the problem itself, and that treating them as the
thing to be fixed can just make the underlying problem harder to see.
