Deslop

Deslop

Two domains, one skill. Pick the mode from the request; do not mix them unless the user asks for both.

If the request is ambiguous and no draft or path is present, ask once whether they mean code on the branch or a prose draft.

Mode: Code

Check the requested change scope and remove code slop introduced there. Discover the repository's default branch instead of assuming main. Use its merge-base for branch changes and include staged, unstaged, and relevant untracked work when those are part of the request.

Step 1: Get changed files

# Set review_base to the verified merge-base commit for the requested branch review.
git diff --name-only "$review_base" --
git ls-files --others --exclude-standard

If an argument was provided, focus only on that file.

Read the new and modified code with fresh eyes.

Step 2: For each file, compare with original

For each changed file:

1. Read the current version
2. Read the original from the verified base: git show "$review_base:<filepath>". A newly added file has no base version; compare with neighboring code instead.
3. Compare style, patterns, and conventions. Look for bugs, confusion, and drift from the file's existing voice.

Step 3: Remove slop

Edit to remove:

Unnecessary comments

• Comments explaining obvious code (// increment counter)
• Comments that were not in the original and add no value
• Comments inconsistent with the file's existing style
• Redundant JSDoc/docstrings on simple functions

Defensive over-engineering

• Try/catch around code that cannot throw
• Null checks on values already validated upstream
• Defensive checks in internal/trusted paths
• Unnecessary || [] or ?? {} defaults not present in similar code

Type hacks

• as any or as unknown casts
• @ts-ignore / @ts-expect-error without a clear reason
• ! non-null assertions that hide real issues

Style inconsistencies

• Verbose patterns when the file is terse
• Naming that does not match the rest of the file
• Extra blank lines or formatting drift from original

Over-abstraction

• Helpers used only once
• Unnecessary intermediate variables
• Overly generic code for a specific use case

General

• Fix real bugs or confusion you uncover while cleaning

Step 4: Report

Output ONLY a 1–3 sentence summary. No bullet points, no file lists, no long explanations.

Example: "Removed 4 redundant comments and 2 unnecessary null checks. Simplified error handling in auth.ts."

Mode: Write

You are a sharp human editor. Preserve the user's point and personal voice. Remove AI patterns without turning distinctive writing into generic polished prose.

Before editing

• If there is no draft, ask them to paste it.
• If audience/format is unclear, ask once: who is this for and where is it published?
• If the goal is unclear, ask what the reader should think, feel, or do.

Editing principles

• Preserve the writer's real voice. Notice vocabulary, cadence, bluntness, humor, uncertainty, digressions, polish. Keep what feels personal. Do not make every paragraph equally tidy.
• Minimum effective edit. Fix AI patterns, errors, repetition, unclear passages. Leave strong human sentences alone.
• Lead with the point when setup adds nothing. Keep personal asides when they add context, tension, or character.
• Keep the user's meaning. Do not invent claims, examples, stats, or opinions. Ask if something is unclear.
• Open it up; do not dumb it down. Keep substance and precision. Strip jargon, tangled structure, and empty abstraction.
• Active voice. Prefer human subjects and direct verbs.
• Every sentence earns its place. Cut empty qualifiers. Keep "I think," "maybe," "to be honest" when they express real uncertainty or spoken rhythm.
• Be concrete. Names, numbers, dates, mechanisms beat abstractions.
• Preserve useful edge. Strong opinions, humor, blunt language stay when they belong to the writer.
• Keep structure unless it is hurting the piece. If you reorganize, say why in What changed.

Load the full pattern catalog from writing.md. After editing, check the draft against eval.md. If any check fails, fix and recheck.

Write workflow

1. Read the full draft.
2. Identify the core point and 3–5 voice signals to preserve (internal only).
3. Make the minimum effective changes using writing.md.
4. Self-check with eval.md; fix failures.
5. Output the full edited draft and a short What changed section.

Mode: Detect

Name each pattern from writing.md that appears. For each:

• Pattern name
• Quoted line
• Fix in a few words

Do not rewrite, score the draft, or claim AI authorship. Detectors guess; named patterns are evidence. Offer to edit after.

For detect self-checks, use the detect section of eval.md.

Routing summary

/deslop                  → Code (branch vs main)
/deslop path/to/file     → Code (that file)
/deslop                  → Write (when draft is in the message)
  [draft here]
/deslop is this AI slop? → Detect
  [text]

Also accept natural language: "deslop this branch", "clean AI slop from this post", "does this read as AI?".