# Avoid AI Slop Ja

> Review and rewrite Japanese (and JP-EN mixed) prose to remove "AI slop" — over-smooth uniform tone, generic buzzwords, weak agency, ritual hedging, false contrasts, propositional headings, and other generated-text tells. Use when writing, editing, reviewing, or scoring Japanese articles, memos, briefings, docs, release notes, social posts, or public-facing copy, or when asked to make text "less AI-ish / 人間が書いたように".

- Skill: `ystk-kai/avoid-ai-slop-ja` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 7 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add ystk-kai/avoid-ai-slop-ja`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/ystk-kai/avoid-ai-slop-ja/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: ystk-kai (https://skillmd.com/u/ystk-kai)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/ystk-kai/avoid-ai-slop-ja

---


# Avoid AI slop (Japanese prose)

AI-slop prose is surface-polished but hollow and uniform. Detectors are unreliable (human raters do no better than chance), so this skill is a manual review/rewrite method, not a detector. The knowledge base is self-contained in `references/`. Method adapted from `iKora128/stop-ai-slop-jp`. For visual artifacts (web UI, slides, diagrams, images), use the sibling skill `avoid-ai-slop-design`; this skill covers the prose.

The cardinal rule: **edge (variation, bluntness, a stance) is a means to break uniformity, not a goal.** Don't trade AI-uniform for an "anti-AI template". And always filter techniques by document type (a security briefing is not a personal blog).

## First principle — suspect the absent writer (書き手の不在)

The root cause of "AI smell" is the **absent writer**: no one is behind the text taking a position. Before and after writing, answer three questions (大原則, from stop-ai-slop-jp):

1. 自分は何を「○○だ」と引き受けているか（取っている立場）
2. 反証可能な具体的主張があるか
3. 同じテーマの平均的な記事と何が違うか

If you can't answer these, vocabulary/symbol fixes won't help — restore the author first. This is the highest-leverage move, especially for personal/opinion writing. The 3 questions are the front-loaded 立場/具体 axes of the full score; if they conflict with the full 5-axis result, the full score wins. In **formal** docs "the writer" = the organization's position — show humanity through concrete facts/numbers, not first person or snark, and never fabricate experience to fill the gap.

**Quick path (light use):** short pieces or drafts → answer the 3 questions, then scan Tier-1 banlist + false agency + false contrast (catches most slop in minutes). Anything published, formal, or high-stakes → run the full 6-step process below.

## When not to run this

Over-triggering costs more than under-triggering here: an unrequested rewrite of prose the user is
already happy with reads as noise, and applying 「AI っぽさ」 criteria to the wrong genre makes the
text worse. Skip when:

- **Code, config, logs, commit messages, CLI/API reference output** — mechanical registers where uniformity is correct. Markdown 整形や章構成それ自体も対象外 (別スキルの領域)
- **The user asked something else about the same text** — 事実確認・要約・翻訳・長さ調整。文体には触らない
- **The text is not the deliverable** — 思考メモ、下書きの箇条書き、会話中の即答
- **Casual conversation and short replies** — 数行のやり取りに 5 軸採点をかけない
- **Fixed-form documents** — 法務・規制・監査で文言が定められているもの。ムラは違反になる
- **The user already declined** — 「そのままでいい」「急ぎでいい」と言われた後の同一文書

**Run at most once per artifact per conversation.** 一度通した文章に後続ターンで再採点を重ねない —
指摘が尽きた後の追加指摘は、根拠のない言い換えに落ちる。ユーザーが改稿を依頼したときは当然もう一度回す。

**A caveat is the tell** — 「これは <genre> 向けの基準だが、たぶん役に立つ」と前置きしたくなった
時点で、その文書は対象外。

## Process (run in order)

1. **Decide the document type** — it sets how much variation / bluntness is allowed. See `references/document-types.md`.
2. **Score 5 axes** (立場・リズム・主体性・具体性・削減), 1–10 each. Below 35/50 → rewrite; at 35+ still fix any critical syntax slop. See `references/scoring.md`.
3. **Scan the banlist** (3 tiers: always-ban / avoid-by-default / context-OK). See `references/banlist.md`.
4. **Check syntax patterns** (false agency, propositional H2, false contrast "XではなくY", hook-then-reversal, meta-structure announcements, ❌/✅ slides, triple-parallels, monotone sentence endings). See `references/syntax-patterns.md`.
5. **Keep deliberate ムラ** (variation in length / density / tone / conclusion / detail) within what the doc type allows. See `references/variance.md`.
6. **Rewrite**, then re-check 削減 (cut filler) and 具体性 (names/numbers/examples). Study `references/rewrite-examples.md` — including the over-corrected examples.

## Quick checklist

- [ ] Document type identified; bluntness/variation budget set accordingly.
- [ ] No always-ban items (装飾絵文字 / 全角ダッシュ乱用 / `**` residue / 根拠なし強評価).
- [ ] No inanimate subject performing judgment/intent (false agency).
- [ ] No empty "XではなくY" / propositional-heading pile-up / meta-structure openers.
- [ ] Sentence length and endings vary; not every paragraph lands the same way.
- [ ] Every key claim is anchored to a name / number / example; a stance is taken with a stated basis (≠ unfounded assertion).
- [ ] 5-axis self-score ≥ 35/50 and no critical syntax slop remains.

## 鮮度

この知識ベースは出所リポジトリの clone を持たない自作の調査資料なので、SHA ではなく日付で棚卸しする。各 `references/*.md` の frontmatter が `tracking: review` + `reviewed_at` + `review_interval_days` (180 日) を持ち、`/claude-harness-refs-update` が期限切れを `REVIEW` として報告する。棚卸しでは出典 URL の生存と、記述が前提にしている流行・モデル世代の変化を確認する。