zhukang
1c7abd81d1
- 310 registry:skill items, 1528 files, 7 categories (hub tags) - registry.json generated by @kortix/registry buildRegistry - nested SKILL.md in sn-da-* renamed SUBSKILL.md (no phantom skills) - provenance + licenses: SOURCES.md
44 lines
3.1 KiB
Markdown
44 lines
3.1 KiB
Markdown
# No AI slop eval
|
|
|
|
Use this after the rewrite. Answer each check with pass or fail. If any check fails, fix the draft before returning it.
|
|
|
|
For detect requests, make sure the response names each pattern found with a quoted line and a short fix, without rewriting the draft.
|
|
|
|
## Editing principles
|
|
|
|
1. Does the edit preserve the user's point without adding claims, examples, stats, quotes, or opinions?
|
|
2. Does it preserve the writer's distinctive vocabulary, cadence, bluntness, humor, uncertainty, digressions, and level of polish?
|
|
3. Does it leave strong human sentences alone instead of rewriting them for consistency or making every paragraph equally tidy?
|
|
4. Is the amount of cutting proportional to the actual slop, with no aggressive compression that strips out character?
|
|
5. Does the draft lead with what the reader needs while keeping personal setup that adds context, tension, or character?
|
|
6. Are points front-loaded where that improves clarity without forcing every unit into the same structure?
|
|
7. Do sentences earn their place, with concrete facts, protected details, and direct verbs where the draft supports them?
|
|
8. Does every generic sentence pass the portability test, or was it cut or made specific to this subject?
|
|
9. Does the draft use active voice with human subjects where possible?
|
|
10. Does the edit keep useful edge and preserve structure unless the structure was hurting the piece?
|
|
11. Are genuinely tangled sentences fixed while clear spoken cadence, fragments, and changes in pace remain intact?
|
|
|
|
## Words to cut
|
|
|
|
1. Are banned words, filler phrases, often-empty adverbs, and inflated claims removed unless quoted as examples?
|
|
|
|
## Patterns to cut
|
|
|
|
1. Are binary contrasts, negative listings, rhetorical setups, and throat-clearing openers removed?
|
|
2. Are faux-insight setups, colon reveals, superficial analysis, fake-strong verbs, synonym cycling, dramatic fragments, and robotic rhythm fixed?
|
|
3. Are importance puffery and weasel attribution replaced with plain facts and named sources, or flagged for the user when no source exists?
|
|
4. Is interpretive metadiscourse removed, including authorial metacommentary, reader guidance, emphasis markers, and redundant glossing?
|
|
5. Are fake-profound kicker lines deleted instead of rewritten into better metaphors?
|
|
6. Are summary-recap endings cut so the piece ends on a concrete point, takeaway, or next action?
|
|
7. Is formatting slop removed: Emoji headings, decorative bold, bullets that should be prose, headers over tiny sections?
|
|
8. Are colons sentence case unless grammar, a proper noun, a title, or code requires otherwise?
|
|
9. Are em dashes used sparingly: Usually none in short copy, and only 1-2 in longer drafts when they clearly help?
|
|
|
|
## Final read
|
|
|
|
1. Does the draft avoid robotic symmetry, repeated sentence shapes, and stacked punchy fragments?
|
|
2. Would the writer recognize the edited draft as their own voice?
|
|
3. Would the edited draft sound natural if read to a sharp colleague?
|
|
4. Does the final output include the full edited draft and a short **What changed** section?
|
|
5. For detect requests, does the response name each pattern with a quoted line and a short fix, without rewriting, scoring, or claiming AI authorship?
|