revise

AI Slop Review — Revise Mode

This skill applies a previous /ai-slop:review report to the paper. For each finding, it locates the quoted text in the paper and replaces it with the suggested revision.

Audience and tone. The user has already reviewed the report and wants it applied. Trust the report's Suggested revision fields; do not second-guess them unless the surrounding context makes the suggestion unsafe (e.g., the suggestion would break LaTeX syntax or change the meaning of a result).

When to use

Invoke this skill when the user:

1. Has a generated ai-slop-report.md (or similarly structured report) and wants the findings applied to the paper.
2. Asks to "apply the review", "revise according to the report", or "fix the slop".

Do not invoke when the user wants a fresh review (use /ai-slop:review instead), or when no report file exists.

Inputs

Both inputs default to the current working directory. No arguments are required.

• Report. Defaults to ai-slop-report.md in the working directory. If that file does not exist, ask the user to point to the report (or to run /ai-slop:review first). The report must match the schema produced by /ai-slop:review (Findings by section, Cross-cutting metrics, Items requiring author judgment).
• Paper. Auto-detected by listing the .tex files in the working directory (non-recursive) and identifying the LaTeX root — the file containing \documentclass{} and \begin{document}. If exactly one root is found, use it. If multiple roots are found, prefer main.tex or paper.tex; otherwise list them and ask the user. If no .tex root is found, stop. PDF input is not supported; revise mode edits LaTeX directly.

Optional path overrides. Paths can still be passed as arguments. The first argument is the report path; the second is the paper path.

Workflow

1. Read the report. Parse the Findings by section blocks. Each block has Rule, Location, Quote, and Suggested revision. Skip blocks under "Items requiring author judgment"; those need human input.

2. Read the paper. Open the LaTeX source root and follow \input{} / \include{} to gather the full text. Note the file each section lives in if the paper is multi-file.

3. Apply each finding. For each finding, in document order:

   • Locate the Quote text in the paper. Use the Location hint (file:line) to disambiguate if the same text appears multiple times.
   • If the quote is found exactly: replace it with Suggested revision using the Edit tool. One Edit call per finding (do not bundle multiple findings into one edit; that makes diffs harder to review).
   • If the quote is not found (the paper may have been edited since review): log it as a skipped finding with the reason. Do not attempt fuzzy matching that could change the wrong text.
   • If the quote appears in multiple locations and the Location hint does not uniquely identify one: prefer the location closest to the hint and log the ambiguity in the summary.
   • If the suggestion would break LaTeX (mismatched braces, undefined macros, broken \cite{} keys): log as skipped with the reason rather than apply.

4. Cross-cutting metrics. These are aggregate counts, not individual edits. The specific instances behind them should already appear under "Findings by section". Do not invent new edits to balance a metric.

5. Summarize. Print a summary to the console with three lists:

   • Applied: findings whose Quote was located and replaced.
   • Skipped: findings whose Quote could not be uniquely located, or whose suggestion was unsafe to apply, with reasons.
   • Author judgment required: findings copied from the "Items requiring author judgment" section, so the user knows what still needs manual attention.

6. Stop. Do not regenerate the report. Do not commit the changes. The user runs git diff to inspect and git commit when satisfied.

Bundled files

Revise mode does not need the rule set or the trope catalog at runtime; the report already contains the suggested revisions. If the user asks why a particular finding was flagged, refer them to the rule name in the finding and to ../../shared/rules.md.

Constraints

• Trust the report's suggested revisions. Do not re-derive them from rules.md or tropes.fyi. If a suggestion looks wrong, flag it in the "Skipped" list with the reason rather than silently substituting your own.
• Edit only what the report asks for. Do not "improve" prose that was not flagged. Do not add or remove citations, change figures, or restructure sections.
• One Edit call per finding. Bundling makes diffs harder to review.
• Preserve formatting. Match the surrounding LaTeX context (line breaks, indentation, comment placement) when replacing.
• Do not commit. Leave the changes in the working tree. The user owns the commit.