skills/slop-detector/SKILL.md
--- name: slop-detector description: Scans a substacker draft for 10 signatures of AI-generated explainer slop — meta-framing openers ("In this post"), list-heavy argument, nominalization clusters, generic examples lacking first-person texture, prompt-residue phrases ("Let's break this down"), buzzword stuffing, outline-shaped paragraphs, hedge clusters, flattened uncertainty. Use when a draft "feels generic" even after voice-check passes. Trigger keywords: slop, AI-written, generic, template, m
npx skillsauth add lyndonkl/claude skills/slop-detectorInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
Related skills: Called by the Editor voice pass. Consumes hedge-cluster count from hedge-detector (S8). Emits the "Slop signatures" subsection.
Fixed list. Each either clean or flagged with the offending span.
| # | Signature | Detection |
|---|---|---|
| S1 | Meta-framing opener | First paragraph contains In this post, This article, We will explore, Let's dive into, Today we'll look at |
| S2 | List-carrying-argument | Any bulleted list where the argument collapses if bullets are removed. Test: does the prose still stand without the list? |
| S3 | Zombie nouns (Sword) | >3 nominalizations per 100 words (suffixes: -ation, -ity, -ment, -ence on abstract nouns) |
| S4 | Generic examples | "a company" / "a model" / "a user" with no specific name, scale, dataset |
| S5 | No first-person | Zero I, my, we-as-me in a >800-word reflective essay |
| S6 | Prompt residue | Let's break this down, To summarize, In conclusion, Key takeaways, Let me explain |
| S7 | Outline-shaped paragraphs | >60% of paragraphs follow same syntactic shape: topic → 3 supporting sentences → transition |
| S8 | Hedge cluster | ≥2 epistemic-weakness hedges within 50 words (from hedge-detector) |
| S9 | Buzzword stuffing | ≥3 terms from {game-changer, paradigm shift, under the hood, delve, unpack, dive into} in a single draft |
| S10 | Flattened uncertainty | Any small-N caveat that appears in corpus/drafts/notes/ but was removed in the submitted draft (requires notes; else skip this signature) |
Slop scan draft D:
- [ ] Step 1: For each signature, run detection rule
- [ ] Step 2: Mark each signature as clean | flagged (with quote)
- [ ] Step 3: Tier-1 signatures: S1, S2, S6 (generic framing + prompt residue)
- [ ] Step 4: Tier-2 signatures: S3, S4, S5, S7, S9
- [ ] Step 5: Emit the slop signatures subsection with each labeled clean/flagged
Count suffix hits (-ation, -ity, -ment, -ence, -ness, -ance) on abstract nouns per 100 words. >3 = flag. Example: "provides analysis of" → nominalized; "analyzes" → active.
Flag an example if it uses only generic pronouns / nouns without a specific anchor:
Parse paragraphs; count those with the shape:
60% of paragraphs following this shape → the draft reads like an AI-generated outline expanded.
Draft fragment:
In this post, we'll explore why RAG beats fine-tuning.
First, let's define RAG. It's a technique where models retrieve documents before generating. A company might use RAG for their customer service chatbot.
Second, fine-tuning involves training. A team might fine-tune to adapt style.
Third, RAG has benefits. Fine-tuning has drawbacks. It could be argued that hybrid works.
To summarize, both approaches have merit.
Detections:
Output: 5 signatures flagged (S1, S2, S4, S6, S7). Tier-1: S1, S2, S6 = 3 tier-1 slop violations.
hedge-detector. Hedge clusters flow from hedge-detector into S8 as an input, not a separate scan here.hedge-detector cluster count as S8 input.testing
Cluster a conference's event records into a small set of coarse themes with finer sub-clusters, an explicit outlier bucket, and soft (multi-membership) affinities — using the hybrid embed-then-label pipeline (embed abstracts, reduce, density-cluster, then LLM-label the clusters) when embedding libraries are available, and an LLM-reasoned hierarchical fallback when they are not. Embeddings do the grouping; the LLM only names the groups. Conference-agnostic. Use when turning structured event records into a navigable theme map for preference elicitation and scheduling, when you need 6-8 reasonable themes rather than 20 muddy ones, or when overlapping talks must belong to more than one theme. Trigger keywords - theme clustering, cluster talks, embed then label, soft membership, outlier talks, conference themes, topic map.
development
Build a personal conference schedule as a constraint-optimization problem — hard constraints (no time overlap, room-to-room travel time, capacity/registration, the attendee's own must-attends and blackouts) plus a user-owned weighted objective trading interest against breadth, pacing (maximize contiguous free time), and serendipity. Surfaces unbreakable conflicts (two high-value overlapping talks the model cannot rank) as decisions for the human rather than silently picking, and reports what each choice traded away. Conference-agnostic. Use to turn a preference profile plus a theme map into a day-by-day plan, to resolve overlapping sessions, or to balance a packed vs paced schedule. Trigger keywords - schedule optimization, conference schedule, constraint optimization, overlapping talks, contiguous free time, conflict surfacing, packed vs paced.
development
Parse a heterogeneous conference program (markdown, HTML, PDF-derived text, or JSON) into normalized event records with per-field confidence scores and independent classification axes (topic, depth, format, prerequisites, recorded, capacity). Detects the program's format before extracting, treats every inferred field as uncertain (present vs inferred vs missing), and flags thin or missing abstracts so downstream enrichment can target them. Conference-agnostic. Use when ingesting a conference or event schedule into a structured store, normalizing a talk/session list, or extracting per-session metadata with calibrated confidence. Trigger keywords - program ingestion, parse schedule, session extraction, event records, conference program, talk metadata, per-field confidence.
development
Build a personalized preference profile from a small number of well-chosen, cluster-grounded questions instead of a long survey. Represents the person's interests as an uncertainty region over the theme map, picks the single highest-information-gain choice-based question (contrasting real talks from different clusters), balances exploiting known interests against exploring uncertain ones, deliberately injects outlier probes to fight selection bias, and stops as soon as the schedule would be stable. Also elicits the user-owned objective weights and hard constraints. Interactive — runs where it can actually ask the person. Conference-agnostic. Use to turn a theme map into a preference profile, to decide what to ask a conference attendee, or to elicit scheduling priorities. Trigger keywords - preference elicitation, ask few questions, information gain, choice-based questions, selection bias probe, objective weights, attendee preferences.