Unslop
Edit explanatory prose or presentation copy so it reads clearly and naturally.
Preserve the author's meaning, requested tone, technical precision, and any
content contract.
Process
- Identify the output boundary. Separate conversational prose, Presentation
content, quotations, citations, accessibility text, and protected structured
content.
- Load any user- or project-supplied editorial preferences before editing.
- Scan the editable prose for the universal clarity rules below.
- Rewrite only what needs rewriting. Keep the intended tone and audience.
- Apply explicit preferences as requirements, not suggestions. If no preference
is supplied, choose the clearest form for the medium without inventing a
house style.
- Run the protection checks and the final human-voice audit.
Universal clarity rules
- Replace puffery with the concrete fact or effect.
- Remove filler, stock chatbot phrases, sycophantic openings, and generic
conclusions.
- Replace vague attribution with a named source or remove the claim.
- Prefer a plain word when it is equally precise.
- Prefer active voice when the actor is known.
- Shorten or split dense sentences that make the reader backtrack.
- Vary rhythm naturally. Do not add forced informality, fake personality, or
unnecessary first person.
- Replace metaphorical, promotional, or fashionable jargon when a concrete word
works better.
- Preserve established technical terms when they name a real concept the reader
needs.
- Ask of every sentence: does it give the reader a fact, instruction, example,
decision, or useful qualification? If not, cut or rewrite it.
Contextual style preferences
Treat these as configurable choices. A user's explicit preference overrides
these defaults for editable prose:
- em dashes, colons, parentheses, and other punctuation
- sentence case or title case headings
- boldface, lists, and rule-of-three structures
- first person, opinions, and conversational reactions
- short fragments, when the format or tone calls for them
Interpret avoid preferences as a scan requirement: remove the pattern when
it is not protected content, including equivalent constructions that preserve
the same stylistic effect. Interpret prefer preferences as a positive target
and use them consistently where the format permits. Do not let a preference
break meaning, accessibility, technical precision, or the output contract.
For presentation projects, preference examples include:
avoid: "bold lead-in followed by a colon", "em dashes", "generic bullet lists"
prefer: "short declarative sentences", "unnumbered statements", "plain headings"
tone: "warm and direct", "formal and restrained", or another user-supplied description
Protected content
Do not rewrite these merely for style:
- code, commands, schemas, JSON, YAML, and machine-readable reports
- canonical terms from the project's glossary
- quotations and citations
- accessibility text, unless the change makes it clearer or more specific
- wording the user supplied for formatting or transport
- deliberately chosen formal, playful, terse, literary, or otherwise specific
tone
If editable prose surrounds protected content, improve the surrounding prose
without changing the protected content's contract.
Presentation content
Presentation content follows the same clarity rules but has tighter constraints.
Keep slide copy concise, preserve narrative hierarchy and Content Capacity, and
do not trade away accessibility or semantic meaning for a more conversational
sound. Apply the project's explicit editorial preferences to slide copy and
presenter notes. A good slide sentence is specific enough to carry the message
without needing the presenter to decode it.
Final audit
Before returning the result, ask:
- What makes this sound machine-produced?
- Did I remove the tell without removing a useful qualification?
- Did I preserve meaning, tone, technical terms, accessibility, and structure?
- Could a reader act on or learn something concrete from each remaining claim?
Do not promise that the result is undetectably human. Report the edits briefly
when the user asked for a review, and do not add a chatbot-style closing.
1---2name: unslop3description: Load when the user asks to edit prose for a more natural voice while preserving meaning, tone, technical precision, and structured output.4---56# Unslop78Edit explanatory prose or presentation copy so it reads clearly and naturally.9Preserve the author's meaning, requested tone, technical precision, and any10content contract.1112## Process13141. Identify the output boundary. Separate conversational prose, Presentation15 content, quotations, citations, accessibility text, and protected structured16 content.172. Load any user- or project-supplied editorial preferences before editing.183. Scan the editable prose for the universal clarity rules below.194. Rewrite only what needs rewriting. Keep the intended tone and audience.205. Apply explicit preferences as requirements, not suggestions. If no preference21 is supplied, choose the clearest form for the medium without inventing a22 house style.236. Run the protection checks and the final human-voice audit.2425## Universal clarity rules2627- Replace puffery with the concrete fact or effect.28- Remove filler, stock chatbot phrases, sycophantic openings, and generic29 conclusions.30- Replace vague attribution with a named source or remove the claim.31- Prefer a plain word when it is equally precise.32- Prefer active voice when the actor is known.33- Shorten or split dense sentences that make the reader backtrack.34- Vary rhythm naturally. Do not add forced informality, fake personality, or35 unnecessary first person.36- Replace metaphorical, promotional, or fashionable jargon when a concrete word37 works better.38- Preserve established technical terms when they name a real concept the reader39 needs.40- Ask of every sentence: does it give the reader a fact, instruction, example,41 decision, or useful qualification? If not, cut or rewrite it.4243## Contextual style preferences4445Treat these as configurable choices. A user's explicit preference overrides46these defaults for editable prose:4748- em dashes, colons, parentheses, and other punctuation49- sentence case or title case headings50- boldface, lists, and rule-of-three structures51- first person, opinions, and conversational reactions52- short fragments, when the format or tone calls for them5354Interpret `avoid` preferences as a scan requirement: remove the pattern when55it is not protected content, including equivalent constructions that preserve56the same stylistic effect. Interpret `prefer` preferences as a positive target57and use them consistently where the format permits. Do not let a preference58break meaning, accessibility, technical precision, or the output contract.5960For presentation projects, preference examples include:6162- `avoid`: "bold lead-in followed by a colon", "em dashes", "generic bullet lists"63- `prefer`: "short declarative sentences", "unnumbered statements", "plain headings"64- `tone`: "warm and direct", "formal and restrained", or another user-supplied description6566## Protected content6768Do not rewrite these merely for style:6970- code, commands, schemas, JSON, YAML, and machine-readable reports71- canonical terms from the project's glossary72- quotations and citations73- accessibility text, unless the change makes it clearer or more specific74- wording the user supplied for formatting or transport75- deliberately chosen formal, playful, terse, literary, or otherwise specific76 tone7778If editable prose surrounds protected content, improve the surrounding prose79without changing the protected content's contract.8081## Presentation content8283Presentation content follows the same clarity rules but has tighter constraints.84Keep slide copy concise, preserve narrative hierarchy and Content Capacity, and85do not trade away accessibility or semantic meaning for a more conversational86sound. Apply the project's explicit editorial preferences to slide copy and87presenter notes. A good slide sentence is specific enough to carry the message88without needing the presenter to decode it.8990## Final audit9192Before returning the result, ask:9394- What makes this sound machine-produced?95- Did I remove the tell without removing a useful qualification?96- Did I preserve meaning, tone, technical terms, accessibility, and structure?97- Could a reader act on or learn something concrete from each remaining claim?9899Do not promise that the result is undetectably human. Report the edits briefly100when the user asked for a review, and do not add a chatbot-style closing.