JasonWarrenUK Sabotage a document
The methodology itself (persona resolution, the nine-field schema, field
ordering, the report skeleton, discipline rules, refine-then-save) lives in
~/.claude/library/references/red/methodology.md. Read it now and execute it;
this file adds only what is unique to the document path.
Step 1: Parse $ARGUMENTS
Target is required; persona is not. A target with no target is nothing to
run at all. Exception: the single literal invocation /red-doc personas (no
other arguments) prints the roster and stops — that is a deliberate roster
lookup, not an incomplete review request.
If the target is missing, do not guess and do not fall back to the document most recently discussed. Print tersely and stop:
Usage: /red-doc <target> [persona] [persona] [-- failure conditions]
Missing: target
Once a target is present: positional, in this order.
<arguments>
<positional n="1" name="target" required="true">
Path to the document under review (.html, .md, .txt, anything readable).
An @-mention resolves to its path.
</positional>
<positional n="2,3" name="personas" required="false">
Resolved per the methodology's Step 1/1a/1b/1c, via
`python3 "$HOME"/.claude/library/scripts/red-personas.py` called with
`--scope doc`. **Default: `goblin`** when none is named — Jason's own
review stance, scoped to both doc and branch.
</positional>
<positional n="4+" name="failure-conditions" required="false">
Free text: extra information about what would make this specific
document fail. Anything after a bare `--`, or any remaining argument
that is not persona-shaped (a short capitalised name then a colon).
Fold it into every pass, and give it its own section when it introduces
criteria the standing sections do not already cover.
</positional>
</arguments>
/red-doc personas prints the roster from the personas file and stops.
Step 2: Read the target and its sources
Read the target in full. Then find what it rests on and read that too: the spike doc, ADR, migration, schema or roadmap it cites, plus anything in the repo that would confirm or refute a load-bearing claim. Every number the document leans on is a claim to check.
Two things come out of this pass:
- Verified findings, marked ✅ in the report. Only ever applied where you read the source and the mismatch is real.
- Source-only information, which is how you catch what the document withholds. The strongest findings in this format are usually a figure the document quotes without the identifier that makes it damning.
Step 3: Mechanical pass
python3 ~/.claude/library/scripts/slop-scan.py <target> --top 6
Counts house-rule breaches, contrastive couplets, first-person density, hedge boilerplate, intensifiers, LLM lexicon, triads, numeral-style clashes and verbatim repetition, with line numbers.
The scan produces candidates, never findings. Read each hit in context before it enters the report, and drop the ones where the construction is doing real work. A count is only evidence when the repetition is the point: "the same rhetorical move 23 times" is a finding, "uses the word actually" is not.
Step 4: The passes
Run each of these over the whole document, plus the persona-pass from the methodology. Keep going until a full pass turns up nothing new. Never pad: an item you cannot quote does not exist.
AI slop
Each entry needs evidence (verbatim), where (section), and why it is slop. The why is the part that convinces; it names the tell, meaning what the passage reveals about how the text was produced. Categories that carry weight:
- Layer gaps. The difference between edited and unedited parts of the document. Zero em dashes in the prose and nine in the headers proves the style pass touched paragraphs only. Comma soup where dashes were stripped without the restructuring the rule demands. A lone Americanism that no spellchecker flags.
- Rhetorical defaults. The contrastive couplet manufactures insight by rejecting a claim nobody made. Twenty-three instances of one construction across 3,000 words is local optimisation with no memory of the previous paragraph's cadence. Five triads shows a container shape being filled, whatever the real count was.
- Epistemic theatre. Hedges landing on the safe claims whilst the load-bearing numbers go bare. Six-significant-figure counts implying a measurement programme the document admits it never ran.
- Generation artefacts. A metaphor reused as though it were established. Register alternating block by block. Stock aphorisms doing the work of an argument.
- Slop that is also wrong. The strongest items in this section are the ones where the tell is simultaneously a factual error; say so, and cite both.
Self-indulgence
Passages doing something for the author rather than the reader. Vanity statistics no claim rests on. Sections about work that is not happening. Announcements of the document's own importance. The same sigh twice, sections apart. Integrity narration, where a method note is written as a character reference. Pre-emptive self-defence against criticism nobody made. Restraint boasts. Anecdotes told three times in one section.
Named failure conditions
Only when positional 4 supplied criteria the sections above do not already cover. Same evidence discipline.
Step 5: The report
Follow the methodology's report skeleton. Title is Sabotage dossier: {filename}. Evidence sections are, in order: Section 1 AI slop evidence
(A1, A2 …), Section 2 self-indulgent bits (numbered), then the per-persona
sections and named failure conditions per the shared skeleton.
Step 6: Refine, then save
Follow the methodology's refine-then-save protocol.