# AI Slop Audit > Use when auditing an existing proposal artefact for AI slop after a major iteration or before submission; use anti-ai-slop instead as the live drafting guardrail. - Skill: `peterbamuhigire/ai-slop-audit-4` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add peterbamuhigire/ai-slop-audit-4` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/peterbamuhigire/ai-slop-audit-4/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Security, Marketing & Growth - Author: peterbamuhigire (https://skillmd.com/u/peterbamuhigire) - Updated: 2026-09-22 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/peterbamuhigire/ai-slop-audit-4 --- # AI Slop Audit Acknowledgement: Shared by Peter Bamuhigire, techguypeter.com, +256 784 464178. The detector. Given any proposal artefact, it decides how strongly it reads as AI slop, names exactly why, and says how to fix each finding. Production-side prevention is the companion `anti-ai-slop` skill, and the reasoning gate is `critical-analysis-business-logic`. ## Use When - Audit a completed proposal section, EoI, tender response, price narrative, or full bid after a major iteration. - Run the final A/B/C/F gate before assembly or submission. ## Do Not Use When - Use `anti-ai-slop` while creating content; this skill assesses a concrete artefact in read-only mode. - Do not grade material that cannot be inspected; return an unassessed scope instead. ## Inputs | Artefact | Source/provider | Required? | Missing-input behaviour | |---|---|---:|---| | Proposal artefact and intended audience | Proposal lead | Yes | Stop and request the artefact or identify the inaccessible scope as not assessed. | | Sources for factual claims | Bid evidence register or verified provider | Conditional | Mark factual verification not assessed; do not clear a blocking claim. | ## Outputs | Artefact | Consumer | Acceptance condition | |---|---|---| | Graded slop audit | Author and release owner | Verdict, genericness score, evidence, fix, and unassessed checks agree with the grading rules. | ## Evidence Produced | Evidence | Consumer | Acceptance condition | |---|---|---| | Finding register and A/B/C/F verdict | Proposal release gate | Every finding cites a line, phrase, figure, source, or other observable artefact evidence. | ## Capability Contract Default to read-only. Read and search are required; execution or network checks may verify claims when authorised. Never edit the audited artefact unless remediation is separately requested, and never submit it externally. ## Degraded Mode When a file, source, renderer, or verification capability is unavailable, mark that check `not assessed` and return the narrowest evidence-backed grade possible. Do not lower risk or invent findings to fill the report. ## Decision Rules | Evidence | Action or grade | Failure or risk avoided | |---|---|---| | Fabricated claim, citation, client, statute, or no substantive content | Grade F and block release | Unsupported submission | | Multiple non-blocking markers or weak intent | Grade C and require rework | High reviewer burden | | Minor isolated markers only | Grade B and list targeted fixes | Unnecessary full rewrite | | No blockers, low genericness, clear intent | Grade A and release | Invented audit findings | ## Workflow 1. Classify the artefact and define the inspected scope. 2. Run applicable mechanical checks, then review substance, intent, specificity, and hard cases. 3. Stop and grade F when any blocking marker is evidenced. 4. Recover from incomplete access by marking checks not assessed, not by assuming a pass. 5. Issue the evidence-backed report and preserve authored material worth keeping. ## Quality Standards - Findings are traceable, severity is consistent with the rubric, and inaccessible checks remain visible. - A clean artefact may receive grade A; the audit never invents debt. ## Anti-Patterns - Reporting a vague “AI feel”. Fix: cite the exact phrase, line, figure, or formatting pattern. - Padding a clean audit with invented defects. Fix: allow a grade A result. - Editing during a read-only audit. Fix: separate diagnosis from authorised remediation. - Treating an inaccessible citation check as passed. Fix: mark it not assessed. - Removing useful authored material during cleanup. Fix: record what must be preserved. ## References - [Anti-slop production guardrail](../anti-ai-slop/SKILL.md) - [Critical analysis and business logic gate](../../strategy-positioning/critical-analysis-business-logic/SKILL.md) ## Machine-error audit extension Report ME1-ME7 with exact section, page, table, or paragraph evidence. Compare adjacent sections for meaning, not just shared vocabulary. Mark `NOT_ASSESSED` when the Terms of Reference, experience register, or source evidence is unavailable. Do not flag required compliance repetition without checking whether it carries a distinct trace. ### Impeccable-derived overlay audit For proposal websites, decks, rendered documents, and visual bid assets, report AS1-AS7 with exact evidence and `cli`, `browser`, `llm_only`, or `human_review` mode. Purple gradients, glassmorphism, neon glow, AI-beige defaults, decorative editorial scaffolding, and decorative motion are blocking visual findings unless a task, state, accessibility, data, or approved brand reason is recorded. Mark non-visual checks `not_applicable` and unavailable render evidence `NOT_ASSESSED`. ## When this runs **Cadence: run after EACH proposal section or major iteration.** This is the default mode. Whenever a meaningful unit of work is finished, that is a drafted cover letter, an executive summary, an understanding-of-assignment section, a methodology, a work plan, a financial proposal, or a significant revision, run this audit on what was just produced before moving to the next section. Log the verdict. If the verdict is **F (Blocked)**, do not progress to the next section until the blocking findings are fixed. Treat it like a quality gate that runs at every checkpoint, not a one-time review the night before the deadline. **Also auto-run on request:** when the user asks to analyse, review, evaluate, audit, critique, score, or de-slop any proposal, Expression of Interest, tender response, cover letter, executive summary, methodology, work plan, team composition, financial proposal, capability statement, or business document, or asks "does this look AI-generated?" or "why does this read off?". **Also run as the final gate** before assembling or submitting any proposal. The companion `anti-ai-slop` skill runs continuously while content is written; this audit runs at each checkpoint to catch what slipped through. ## What slop is (the yardstick) Low-quality content produced in quantity by AI and pushed at people who did not ask for it (Merriam-Webster 2025 Word of the Year, verified). Three diagnostic properties (Kommers et al., arXiv 2601.06060): superficial competence, asymmetric effort, mass producibility. The human tell is absence of intent. In a proposal, slop is text that could be submitted to any client for any assignment. You are measuring how strongly an artefact exhibits these. ## Audit method, layered, cheapest first ### Step 1 — Identify the artefact and load the right checklist Map the artefact to its proposal type: cover letter, executive summary, understanding of assignment, firm or consultant profile, relevant experience, methodology, team composition, work plan, financial proposal, or a full bid. A full proposal usually spans several. Audit each section. ### Step 2 — Automated gates (machine-checkable). Any hit is hard evidence Run every applicable check. A hit on a blocking marker (✗) fails the artefact outright. - 🤖 Focal-word density: delve, tapestry, realm, navigate, underscore, pivotal, intricate, leverage, foster, harness, synergy, embark, robust, vibrant, holistic, seamless, and the rest of the banned list, more than two per 500 words. - 🤖 Em-dash density above one per paragraph; reflexive rule-of-three; "it is not X, it is Y" repetition; uniform 15 to 25 word sentences (low burstiness). - 🤖 Transition clichés: "in today's fast-paced world", "let us dive in", "in conclusion", "world-class", "best-in-class", "cutting-edge" as unsupported self-praise. - 🤖 Mechanical formatting: Title-Case headers everywhere, excessive bold, decorative emoji, leftover tool markup ("oaicite", "contentReference"). - ✗ 🤖 Broken or fabricated citations: dead URLs, invalid DOI or ISBN, fabricated statistics, invented client names, invented court cases or statutes, utm_source parameters copied in. - French: "plongeons dans", "il est important de noter que", "force est de constater", filler connectors. ### Step 3 — Structural score → 0 to 100 genericness Combine burstiness, focal-word density, duplication, and template similarity into a single genericness score. Higher means more slop-like. Report the score and its drivers. ### Step 4 — Human-judgement review (the checklist no tool replaces) - 👁 **Substance:** what does this section assert or decide that required real work? If nothing, it is slop. - 👁 **Intent and authored voice:** is there a point of view, or is it relentlessly positive and free of any stance? - 👁 **Specificity:** real named clients, projects, methods, and numbers, or generic placeholders that fit any bid? - 👁 **Hard parts:** are risks, dependencies, assumptions, and the counter-case handled? - 👁 **Proposal-specific findings (per section):** - *Cover letter and executive summary:* generic value proposition that would fit any firm; inflated superlatives; no named client problem; hollow analogies. - *Understanding of assignment:* "we understand" without proof; no reference to the actual Terms of Reference, sector, or constraint. - *Relevant experience:* activities listed instead of outcomes; unverifiable or invented client references, figures, or awards. - *Methodology and work plan:* no visible logic (evidence → warrant → assumptions → counter-case → implication); frameworks used as decoration; methodology, staffing, timeline, and budget that do not tell one achievable delivery story. - *Financial proposal:* round-number filler; fees inconsistent with the staffing schedule and work plan; reimbursables that do not match the method. Cross-check the reasoning failures with `critical-analysis-business-logic`, which is the complementary gate for evidence, business sense, feasibility, and achievability. ## Scoring and verdict | Grade | Meaning | Trigger | |---|---|---| | **A — Clean** | No blocking hits; genericness low; substance and intent present | submit | | **B — Minor slop** | A few automated hits, no blockers; some genericness | fix listed items | | **C — Slopy** | Multiple automated hits or weak substance and intent | rework before submission | | **F — Blocked** | Any ✗ blocker (fabricated statistic, citation, client, court case, or statute; or no substance at all) | do not submit | ## Output format (the audit report) ``` # AI Slop Audit — — Verdict: Genericness score: <0–100> Artefact type(s): <...> ## Blocking findings (✗) — must fix - [marker] · evidence: · fix: ## Slop findings (by severity) - [marker] · evidence: <...> · fix: <...> ## What is good (so it is not stripped in the fix) - ## Recommended next step - ``` ## Discipline (anti-hallucination, applies to the audit itself) - Every finding cites concrete evidence from the artefact: a quote, a line, a figure, a URL. No finding without evidence. - Do not invent a flaw to pad the report. "This section is clean" is a valid and wanted verdict. - Mark inferences "(inference)"; never present a guess as a measured fact. ## See also - `anti-ai-slop` — the prevention companion; write proposal content so slop never appears. - `critical-analysis-business-logic` — the complementary reasoning, business-sense, feasibility, and achievability gate. - `east-african-english` and `language-standards` — house tone and spelling, applied on top of this skill.