Anti Slop Writing

Anti-slop writing

A sharp human editor, not a humanizer. The job is to make the writing clearer and more alive while it still sounds like the same person. Load anti-slop for the shared rules; this skill holds the prose depth. The pattern catalogue is TELLS.md; plain swaps for pompous words are PLAIN-WORDS.md; Hebrew is HEBREW.md; the final check is CHECK.md. Edit modes, the second-generation tells, the social and email tells and the plain-words list come from coreyhaines31/marketingskills (copy-editing, copywriting, social, emails; MIT), which credits Profound's and Wispr Flow's skills (MIT) for the modes and the second-generation tells; the reply format is open-seo's seo-coach (MIT); Hebrew additions are skills-il's hebrew-content-writer (MIT).

Apply only the routes and checks for the selected job. Read a linked skill's named file from its installed folder when available, or from the linked source. Report an unavailable required reference instead of inventing it. [skill-authoring, DISTRIBUTION.md#composing-skills]

Two jobs

Edit (the default). The user gives a draft to improve. Make the minimum effective edit and return the full edited text plus a short What changed. First decide what you were handed, because "the mode sets how much you're allowed to change" [coreyhaines31/marketingskills, copy-editing]: blank or slop may be rebuilt "from the underlying facts; never invent stats, customers, or results"; a real voice keeps "their argument, vocabulary, and emphasis". The mode table is anti-slop-copy REVIEW.md.

Point edit. The user names one line, word or section ("Fix this headline," "is this sentence OK?"): change only that and return only the changed text with a one-line reason per change [coreyhaines31/marketingskills, copy-editing]. This is the one exception to returning the full text; the rules are in anti-slop-copy REVIEW.md.

Detect. The user asks whether a text reads as AI, or asks to audit or flag it without rewriting. Name each pattern from TELLS.md that appears, quote the line, give the fix in a few words. Don't rewrite, don't score, and never claim a text was or wasn't written by AI: detectors guess, named patterns are evidence the user can check. Offer to edit afterwards.

Write from scratch. Same rules, applied while drafting: know the reader and the point first, then write from the facts you have, then run CHECK.md. Before a full rewrite with no draft to restore, build the writer first: the five silent questions and the traits they produce are anti-slop-copy DRAFTING.md [coreyhaines31/marketingskills, copywriting]. They never license facts: "Never invent experience".

Before touching the text

• For editing or detection, ask for the draft if it is missing; for an explicit write-from-scratch request, use that branch above. If the audience or the outlet is unclear and it matters, ask one question: who reads this, and where?
• Find the core point. If you can't state it in one sentence, ask.
• List the voice traits to keep: vocabulary, sentence length, bluntness, humor, uncertainty, digressions, swearing, level of polish, recurring phrases. If the user gives a sample of their writing, match it; it outranks this skill's style preferences. From a sample, "match its average sentence length, punctuation habits, paragraph openings, and a few words they use that you wouldn't" [coreyhaines31/marketingskills, copywriting].
• Read taste as well as words: vocabulary, where the writer spent words and what they left out are choices to match (anti-slop-copy DRAFTING.md). If a personal voice guide exists for this writer, read it before any brand profile (anti-slop-copy VOICE.md).
• "Read through once without editing" [coreyhaines31/marketingskills, copy-editing].
• Note the language and register. For Hebrew, read HEBREW.md first.

Editing principles

• Minimum effective edit. Fix the patterns, errors and tangles. Leave strong human sentences alone. A rough draft with a real voice should still sound like its writer. The leave-it-alone test: "For each change, ask whether it's measurably better or just different. Revert anything you can't give a reason for" [coreyhaines31/marketingskills, copy-editing] (anti-slop-copy DRAFTING.md).
• Keep the meaning. Add no claim, example, number, quote or opinion. If a sentence needs a fact to work, ask for it or mark [NEED: ...].
• Lead with the point when the setup adds nothing. Keep a personal aside or story when it gives context, tension or character.
• Concrete over abstract. Names, numbers, dates, mechanisms, examples. "The integration improved efficiency" becomes "Deploys went from 40 minutes to 4", but only if the 40 and the 4 are real.
• Portability test. A sentence that could move unchanged to another company, person or topic is filler. Cut it, or replace it with something true of this subject.
• Show, don't label. Cut lines that tell the reader something is important, surprising or key. If the facts show it, the label is noise.
• Direct verbs, human subjects. "Decided", not "made a decision". "We rewrote the page", not "the page was updated". No abstraction doing a human verb ("the data wants", "the platform understands").
• Repeat the right word. Don't rotate synonyms for the same thing.
• Untangle without flattening. Split sentences that are genuinely hard to follow; keep the long spoken ones and the fragments that carry the writer's rhythm.
• Keep the edge. Strong opinions, bluntness, humor, admissions, mixed feelings. Don't sand them into professional neutrality.
• Keep the structure unless it hurts. If you reorder, say why in What changed.
• Don't trade one tic for another. If every contrast reveal becomes ", because..." and every negation list becomes "There's nothing to X", those are the new tells. Fix each from its own facts.

What not to flag

These are not evidence on their own (details in TELLS.md): polished grammar, formal vocabulary, one transition word, one em dash, one short emphatic sentence, curly quotes, an unsourced claim, dry writing. Phrases inside quotes, titles, names, or a sentence that discusses the phrase are not being used and stay untouched.

Signs of a human, to protect

Odd, hard-to-invent specifics. Mixed feelings left unresolved. Era-bound references and slang. Uneven sentence lengths. Real asides and self-corrections. When you see these, edit less.

Replies in a terminal or chat

For a reply using the SEO-coaching format, these are the source's terminal/chat conventions, not requirements for every writing task or chat reply [open-seo, seo-coach]:

• "Lead with the answer or the one next step. Context comes after, not before."
• "A paragraph is at most two sentences." "One idea per bullet, one line where possible. No nested bullets."
• "Bold a short label at the start of a bullet when the list has more than three items."
• "Numbers get a plain-language gloss the first time, in the same bullet: '2,400/mo (people searching it each month)'."
• "End with a single question or a numbered list of 2-4 choices. Never both."
• "Don't restate what the user already knows or what a tool call just showed them."
• "Keep replies under a screen. If it needs more, that is a skill report, not a coach answer." The report rules are seo SEO-REPORTS.md.

Output

• Edit: the full edited text, then What changed: a few lines naming the patterns fixed and anything restructured or flagged [NEED: ...].
• Point edit: only the changed lines, each with a one-line reason, one alternative where the choice is close, and any serious problem elsewhere in one line at the end.
• Detect: a list of findings, each pattern: "quoted line" -> fix, grouped by pattern, most damaging first. End with whether the text reads as slop overall (a cluster) or has isolated devices only.
• Run CHECK.md before returning either.