stop-slop

Stop Slop

Eliminate predictable AI writing patterns from prose while preserving the author's voice and intent.

When to Load References

Read references/phrases.md when identifying or removing filler phrases, business jargon, or emphasis crutches. Skip if the user's request is purely structural (rhythm, fragmentation).

Read references/structures.md when identifying or fixing binary contrasts, dramatic fragmentation, rhetorical setups, or rhythm problems. Skip if the user's request is purely about specific word choices.

Read references/examples.md when the user asks for examples, before/after rewrites, or when demonstrating a transformation would clarify a correction. Skip if the user has not asked for examples and the correction is self-evident.

Core Rules

1. Cut filler phrases. Remove throat-clearing openers and emphasis crutches. Specific phrases are in references/phrases.md.

2. Break formulaic structures. Avoid binary contrasts, dramatic fragmentation, rhetorical setups. Patterns are in references/structures.md.

3. Vary rhythm. Mix sentence lengths. Two items beat three. End paragraphs differently.

4. State facts directly. Skip softening, justification, hand-holding.

5. Cut quotables. If it sounds like a pull-quote, rewrite it.

6. Preserve voice. Remove patterns without flattening the author's distinctive choices. A phrase is deliberate (not slop) when it appears consistently in multiple places, uses unusual word choice unique to the author, or is structurally necessary (e.g., a technical instruction like "Navigate to Settings"). Flag it rather than silently removing it.

7. Skip technical content. Do not apply prose rules to code blocks, filenames, CLI commands, UI labels, or technical terms embedded in prose (e.g., "Navigate to the Settings page" in a tutorial is a UI instruction, not business jargon).

Quick Checks

Before delivering prose:

• Three consecutive sentences match length? Break one.
• Paragraph ends with punchy one-liner? Vary it.
• Em-dash before a reveal? Remove it.
• Explaining a metaphor? Trust it to land.

Scoring

Rate 1-10 on each dimension:

Dimension	Question
Directness	Statements or announcements?
Rhythm	Varied or metronomic?
Trust	Respects reader intelligence?
Authenticity	Sounds human?
Density	Anything cuttable?

Below 35/50: revise. Perform one revision pass, then re-score. Stop after the second pass regardless of score — additional passes risk changing the author's meaning. If the score is still below 35 after two passes, note the remaining issues and ask the user whether to continue.

If the text is under 50 words, skip scoring and apply the Core Rules and Quick Checks only.

Workflow

1. Determine the task:

   • Editing existing prose ("clean up", "rewrite", "fix"): apply Core Rules, run Quick Checks, score, revise if below 35.
   • Writing new prose ("write", "draft"): apply Core Rules as constraints during drafting; score the draft before delivering.
   • Review/audit only ("review", "check", "flag", "what's wrong"): list flagged patterns with location references, score, and stop — do not rewrite.
   • Ambiguous request ("take a look", "what do you think"): ask whether the user wants a rewrite or an audit before proceeding.

2. If the text is ambiguous in intent (e.g., a stylistic fragment that could be deliberate), flag it with a one-line note rather than silently removing it.

3. Deliver the output. If patterns were intentionally left, list them at the end with a one-sentence reason for each.