no-ai-slop

What the source does

• FilesystemNone observedNo reads or writes in the source
• NetworkNone observedNo outbound calls in the source
• ShellNone observedNo commands run in the source
• DependenciesPinnedNothing floats
• SecretsNone foundNo keys in source

Five audit layers

Gates applied: no behavioural pass, no license.

Audit 0.4.1 · source sha 28074f13324d · 20 Oct 2026Report an issue or request a re-scan

• Publisherrealrossmanngroup GitHub userOwner of the repository this skill is read from
• Source folderrealrossmanngroup/no_ai_slop_writing_rules/skills/no-ai-slopThe exact folder we audited
• LicenceNot declaredAs the repository states it
• Commit pinned for this verdict28074f13324dA new audit runs when the source changes
• Repository statusNot archivedLast push 142 days ago
• Sandboxed runNot runSkills are read, not executed; layer L4 is skipped

Its description: Rules and worked examples for writing prose that does not read like AI-generated slop. Consult before writing or editing any prose.

---
name: no-ai-slop
description: "Rules and worked examples for writing prose that does not read like AI-generated slop. Consult before writing or editing any prose."
---

# No AI Slop

The full rule list lives in the project `CLAUDE.md` (rules 1 through 24). This skill turns the rules that have worked examples into actionable guidance: each shows a WRONG version (the slop) and a RIGHT version (the fix). The pattern behind every fix is the same: replace the vague claim with a specific, checkable fact.

## Rule 1: No emdashes

The character is banned. Use a semicolon, a period, a comma, or restructure.

- WRONG: "The policy -- which affected millions -- was later reversed."
- RIGHT: "The policy affected millions of devices. The company reversed it in December 2017."

## Rule 4: No intensifiers

"Significantly", "dramatically", "extremely" and their kin are placeholders for evidence. Replace the word with the number it was standing in for.

- WRONG: "The pricing was significantly higher than the cost of the part."
- RIGHT: "They charged $1,200 for a repair that needed a $5 chip."

## Rule 5: No hollow statements

A sentence that asserts importance without a detail says nothing. End every claim on a concrete fact.

- WRONG: "This practice has had a significant impact on people."
- RIGHT: "The company replaced 11 million batteries in 2018, against the 1 to 2 million it had expected."

## Rule 7: No structural slop (repetitive layouts)

Three sections built from the same template read as machine output, even when each fact is true. Vary paragraph count, sentence rhythm, and how each section opens.

- WRONG (three sections, identical shape):
  ```
  In [year], [party] did [thing]. This affected [number] people. [Party] responded by [action].
  In [year], [party] did [thing]. This affected [number] people. [Party] responded by [action].
  In [year], [party] did [thing]. This affected [number] people. [Party] responded by [action].
  ```
- RIGHT (vary the shape):
  ```
  Section one: a detailed narrative with timeline and context across two paragraphs.
  Section two: a two-sentence summary, because the event is thinly documented.
  Section three: opens with the party's stated justification, then the contradicting evidence.
  ```

## Rule 11: No filler phrases

"In today's world", "It's important to note", "When it comes to" add length, not meaning. Open on the fact.

- WRONG: "In today's world, planned obsolescence affects many devices."
- RIGHT: "Apple, Samsung, and Google have each faced lawsuits alleging planned obsolescence."

## Rule 13: Write like a researcher, not a copywriter

If a sentence could sit on any advocacy or marketing site without changing a word, it is generic. Anchor it to something checkable.

- WRONG: "People deserve the right to repair their own devices."
- RIGHT: "The FTC voted 5-0 in July 2021 to step up enforcement against illegal repair restrictions."

## Rule 15: No weasel words

"May potentially", "can help to", "might be able to" hedge a claim into meaninglessness. Either the thing happens or it does not. Say which.

- WRONG: "Serialization may potentially prevent independent repair."
- RIGHT: "Replacing an iPhone 15 camera module without the manufacturer's calibration software disables optical image stabilization."

## Rule 16: No dramatic headings

A heading names what the section holds. It does not tease, dramatize, or abstract.

- WRONG: "The Hidden Cost of Planned Obsolescence"
- RIGHT: "Economic impact of shortened product lifespans"

## Rule 19: No fabricated attributions

Never put a position in a named person's mouth from inference. State only what they actually did or said, with the real source.

- WRONG: "Senator Smith has argued that the right to repair is essential."
- RIGHT: "Senator Smith co-sponsored the Fair Repair Act in January 2024."

## Root-cause differentiation

When you contrast two things, name the concrete difference that separates them. Do not assert that one is exempt, newer, better, or unaffected without saying what specifically makes it so.

- WRONG: "2020+ Leaf models are unaffected and use the MyNISSAN app instead."
- RIGHT: "2020+ Leaf models shipped with 4G/LTE telematics units connected to a newer cloud platform, replacing the 2G/3G units in earlier models. Those vehicles use the MyNISSAN app, which talks to a different backend."

Whenever you say A differs from B, name the part, the version, the date, the mechanism, or the supply-chain change that makes the difference real. If you do not have that detail, do not imply the difference exists.

## Self-check before returning text

Run this pass on every piece of prose before you hand it back. The full banned lists are in `references/ai-writing-detection.md`; check against them directly.

1. Search for the emdash character. Remove every one (Rule 1).
2. Scan for banned verbs (delve, leverage, utilize, foster, bolster, underscore, unveil, streamline) and replace with plain equivalents.
3. Scan for banned adjectives and intensifiers (robust, comprehensive, pivotal, seamless, significantly, extremely, truly) and cut or replace.
4. Scan for banned transitions and openers (Furthermore, Moreover, That being said, In today's world, It's worth noting that).
5. Check every number: is it real and attributable? If not, cut it (Rule 2).
6. Check every sentence ends on a concrete detail, not an assertion of importance (Rule 5).
7. Check headings: does each name the content rather than tease it (Rule 16)?
8. Check for repeated points and repeated section shapes (Rules 6, 7).
9. Count hedging markers per paragraph. More than three is a red flag.
10. Read it aloud. If a phrase would sound unnatural to a colleague, rewrite it.

Excerpt, first 5,722 characters of SKILL.md, verbatim from the audited commit. It is text from someone else’s repository, quoted so you can judge it before your agent reads it.

git clone https://github.com/realrossmanngroup/no_ai_slop_writing_rules
git -C no_ai_slop_writing_rules checkout 28074f13324d

Works in

1. 2026-10-20
   ✓SAFE B 89 / 100

   first audit · source 28074f13324d

Questions about no-ai-slop

• github.com/realrossmanngroup/no_ai_slop_writing_rules/tree/main/ — the audited source at commit 28074f13324d and every finding aboveObserved · 20 Oct 2026

Spotted something wrong? Report a correction · Methodology