polarsource Slop Check (Polar)
The handle is the diff. The evidence is lines that should not exist.
Not a bug hunt, not a style guide. One job: delete code that is recognisably agent-written and that a Polar reviewer would ask you to remove. Run it before the other lenses, because everything it cuts is diff nobody else has to read.
Calibration, from real reviews:
"Verbosy LLM comment" · "Meaningless slop comment imho, let's drop" · "That's typical of Claude, it puts those private helper functions everywhere!" · "Lol, LLM was zealous here" · "This feels like a new thing that Claude always wants to throw in" · "Overengineering IMO, that case would be at most rare"
Scope
Any diff. It is cheap, there is no reason to skip it.
Owned elsewhere: reinvented helpers → reuse-check; written conventions → conventions-check.
Checks
Propose a deletion, not a rewrite, wherever a deletion will do.
1. Comments that restate the code. The repo rule is: no comments unless necessary, the code should be self-explanatory. Comment the non-obvious why, never the what. Endpoint docstrings are not slop — they render into OpenAPI — but strip implementation detail out of them.
2. Private helpers in test files. The strongest agent tell here. _make_auth_subject()
or _create_order(...) at the top of a test module instead of the fixtures. If a helper is
genuinely needed it is a pytest fixture. Also flag save_fixture called twice on one object,
and re-setting data a fixture already provides.
3. Near-duplicate tests. Agents write one test per input permutation. Flag any group in the diff that differs only by an input value and asserts the same branch, and say which to keep.
4. Tests that assert nothing. A test body with no assert / expect always passes.
Grep every new test.
5. Unrequested extras. An index nobody asked for, validation the type already enforces, a
config flag with one caller, an abstraction with one implementation, a try/except for
something the framework handles, an overload that changes no behaviour. Ask of each: what
breaks if this is deleted? If nothing, delete it.
6. Guards that duplicate an existing check. Defensive code repeating an upstream check, or
guarding a case the data model makes impossible. Also a superfluous session.flush() —
flushing is only for data that must be visible before the request ends.
7. Dead on arrival. Added in the diff but nothing calls it: unused argument, unused
import, method with no caller, getattr where attribute access works, a wrapper that only
forwards.
Do not flag
Two ways this check goes wrong, both worse than the slop itself.
- Domain comments. A comment explaining why a lock is released only on the webhook path,
or why a status maps to Stripe's
lost, is exactly what the team wants. The test is whether the sentence carries information the code cannot. - Real coverage. Only flag a test that duplicates another test in this diff, or that asserts nothing. Cutting coverage to hit a "fewer tests" target is a worse outcome.
Output
## Slop
### 🟠 Delete
- `file:line-line` — <why>
### 🟡 Question
- `file:line` — <question, e.g. "index added but the task did not ask for one. What query needs it?">
### Verdict
✅ Clean | ❌ n lines to remove
Group by file and give line ranges, so the author can act without re-reading the diff.