---
name: no-ai-slop
description: Edit a draft for clearer, more human writing without erasing its voice, or audit a draft for generic AI-like patterns without rewriting it. Use for writing that feels vague, overpolished, repetitive, or obviously generated.
---

# No AI Slop

Improve prose without replacing the person behind it. The target is writing that says something specific in a recognisable voice, not uniformly polished copy.

## Pick a mode

**Edit** is the default when the user asks to improve, tighten, humanise, or make a draft less AI-sounding. Return the complete revised draft followed by a short **What changed** section.

**Audit** applies when the user asks whether a draft reads as AI, asks for a scan, or explicitly does not want a rewrite. Identify observable writing patterns, quote the relevant wording, and give a concise remedy. Do not rewrite the draft, assign a probability, or claim to know who wrote it. Patterns are evidence; authorship is not.

If there is no draft, ask for it. If the audience, format, or desired reader action would materially change the edit, ask one focused question before editing.

## Editorial contract

- Keep the writer's point, facts, uncertainty, humour, bluntness, and useful quirks intact.
- Change only what improves comprehension, precision, or momentum. A distinctive rough edge is not automatically a defect.
- Never add a source, number, anecdote, outcome, opinion, or causal explanation that is absent from the draft.
- Prefer the draft's own concrete details over a smoother generalisation. If evidence is missing, leave a gap or ask for it.
- Reorder only when the existing order hides the point. Say so in **What changed** when you do.
- Match the original level of formality. Do not turn a note, post, or personal message into corporate copy.

## What to look for

Use judgment rather than mechanically removing every instance. A signal matters when it weakens this particular draft.

### Empty framing

Remove openings that announce a point instead of making it, such as a generic promise, a warning that something matters, or a theatrical "here is the truth" lead-in. Start with the claim, scene, fact, or question that earns the reader's attention.

### Manufactured contrast

Flatten formulas that pretend two labels are in tension: "It is not about X; it is about Y," a string of negatives followed by a reveal, or a self-answered rhetorical question. State the useful proposition directly unless the contrast genuinely carries meaning.

### Inflated significance

Replace praise without evidence, institutional-sounding abstractions, and vague transformation language with the actual event and consequence. Do not substitute new metrics merely because a sentence needs an example.

### Unsupported authority

Flag claims attributed to unnamed experts, studies, users, or industry consensus. Retain a named, supplied source; otherwise remove the attribution or ask the writer to support it.

### Fuzzy mechanics

Prefer a clear actor and action over phrases where a system, initiative, or decision vaguely "enables," "drives," or "serves as" something. Keep passive voice when the actor is unknown, irrelevant, or deliberately withheld.

### Repetition disguised as variety

Use the same accurate noun when it prevents confusion. Cut repeated conclusions, decorative synonyms, and paragraphs that make the same point with slightly different wording.

### Automated rhythm

Break up predictable sentence shapes, stacked fragments, dramatic colon reveals, and a parade of headings or bullets. Preserve deliberate fragments, pauses, and spoken cadence when they sound like the writer rather than a template.

### Decorative finish

Remove a recap that only repeats the article, a forced moral, or a polished-sounding final metaphor. End on the last concrete takeaway, decision, image, or next action that the draft has earned.

### Formatting as decoration

Use headings, bullets, bold, emoji, and punctuation to help navigation, not to simulate energy. Do not add emphasis marks or em dashes as a default rhythm.

## Editing method

1. Read the entire draft before changing a sentence.
2. Privately identify the main point and a few voice cues worth retaining: word choice, pacing, humour, informality, hesitation, or structure.
3. Remove or rewrite only the signals that reduce clarity or credibility.
4. Check each new sentence against the factual boundary. If it relies on an unstated fact, undo it.
5. Read the result once for repetition and once for voice. Preserve good lines even if they are not conventionally polished.
6. Return the full edited draft, then **What changed** in two to five concrete bullets.

## Audit format

For each finding, use this compact form:

`Pattern — quoted wording — practical fix`

Group identical issues rather than creating a long list of near-duplicates. Finish by offering an edit; do not supply one unless the user asks.

## Before sending an edit

Read [eval.md](eval.md) as a final quality check. Keep that checklist internal. Do not report a checklist score or describe the result as proof that a human wrote it.