SlopMonster

SlopMonster checks English writing for common AI writing patterns and provides instructions for editing the draft. Use it on a README, a landing page, an email or a script.

The Python checker reports matches in five categories and gives the text a score out of 5. The editing workflow asks an AI agent to review the draft for its intended reader, revise it, and request another pass from a different model family.

A score of 5/5 means the checker found no scored matches. You still need to review whether the text makes sense, supports its claims and gives the reader what they came for. The previous version of this README passed while using repetitive metaphors and vague contrasts. That exposed a gap in the editing guidance.

Quick start

The checker uses Python 3 and its standard library. It needs no API key or packages to install.

git clone https://github.com/ItsssssJack/SlopMonster
cd SlopMonster

# Check a short draft.
python3 tools/deslop.py --text "It's not just a tool, it's a game-changing journey."
# Scores 3/5 and exits with status 1.

# Check a Markdown file.
python3 tools/deslop.py README.md

# Check text extracted from an HTML file.
python3 tools/deslop.py index.html

Each category with a match costs one point, regardless of how many matches it contains. The command exits with status 0 at 5/5 and status 1 below 5/5. Empty input also fails. Checking a file leaves its contents unchanged.

For Markdown, the checker skips fenced code blocks, inline code, images and struck-through examples. For HTML, it removes tags and script/style contents. It doesn't render the page, so text hidden by CSS can still be included.

Edit a draft

Give your agent SKILL.md and the draft. Include the intended audience and where the writing will appear if those are unclear from the text.

1. Run the checker to identify the patterns it recognizes.
2. Review the draft's purpose and order. A README should explain the tool and show how to use it. An email should make its reason for writing clear.
3. Rewrite unclear or repetitive passages. Check that each sentence adds useful information and that claims match the supplied facts.
4. Request a second editing pass from a different model family, then inspect the changes and run the checker again.

The second pass uses prompts/cleanse.txt. With a supported AI command-line tool (CLI) installed and authenticated, run:

# If Claude wrote the draft, use Codex for the second pass.
DESLOP_WRITER=claude tools/cleanse.sh draft.md > cleansed.md

# If GPT wrote the draft, use Claude for the second pass.
DESLOP_WRITER=gpt tools/cleanse.sh draft.md > cleansed.md

# Read the edited file, then check it as Markdown.
python3 tools/deslop.py cleansed.md

Run the command for the family that wrote your draft. The script writes edited copy to standard output and change notes to standard error. It uses the installed CLI's configured model.

If the required CLI is missing, the script prints the editing prompt and draft, then exits with status 127. Paste that output into the other model family's chat. A timeout exits with status 124. Check the exit status before treating the output file as an edited draft. A warning about a missing notes marker means the response may include change notes in the copy.

Using another model provides another editing pass. It doesn't guarantee better writing. Review the result for changed facts and lost context before accepting it.

Use as an agent skill

For Claude Code, copy this folder to ~/.claude/skills/slopmonster/ and invoke /slopmonster. For Codex or another agent, ask it to follow SKILL.md.

What the checker flags

The current score has five categories:

Category	What it checks
Vocabulary	Listed words such as delve and seamless, including selected word forms.
Sentence patterns	Listed constructions such as not just X, but Y, stacked hedges and certain self-answering questions.
Punctuation	Repeated em dashes or stacked hyphenated compounds within a 220-character window in a sentence, plus semicolon density.
Three-item lists	Two specific list patterns that often occur in promotional copy.
Possible unsupported proof	Numbers near nouns such as users or customers. The checker cannot verify the claim.

The patterns are in tools/deslop.py. The broader editing catalogue is in references/signs-of-ai-writing.md. Some entries in that catalogue require editorial judgment and have no automated check.

If a flagged customer count is accurate and you have evidence for it, use:

python3 tools/deslop.py index.html --allow-proof

This option still reports proof matches but removes their score penalty. It doesn't check the evidence. In this mode, 5/5 can include proof warnings.

Review beyond the score

Read the draft in the context where someone will encounter it. Check these points before accepting an edit:

• Audience and purpose: Does it answer the reader's likely questions at the right level of detail? Explain technical terms where they first matter.
• Opening: Does the first paragraph explain the subject or establish a useful reason to keep reading? Avoid adding a second hook that delays the explanation.
• Progression: Does each sentence build on the previous one? Remove repeated metaphors and contrasts that add no information.
• Claims: Can you support each factual statement? Describe optional behavior with its conditions. For example, a command's failure status only stops a workflow if that workflow is configured to act on it.
• Voice: Does the wording suit the author and format? Contractions are fine where natural. Forced fragments and invented opinions can make the edit worse.

See references/principles.md for more editing guidance and examples. Never add a statistic or testimonial to make a sentence sound specific. If information is missing, flag it for the author.

Limits

The checker uses English patterns and has no language detection. Text in another language can score 5/5 because those patterns don't match.

It can flag ordinary wording and miss poor writing. It cannot determine who wrote the text, verify facts or judge whether a hook suits the audience. Use its findings as prompts for review. A passing score alone doesn't establish writing quality.

Optional CI check

You can run the checker in continuous integration (CI), the automated checks a repository runs when code changes. Because a score below 5/5 returns a failure status, a workflow that runs the command can fail on flagged copy.

This repository's workflow runs the regression tests and checks both this README and a sample file. Copy it to your repository and set the file paths you want checked. Blocking a merge or deployment requires your own repository rules or deployment configuration.

python3 tools/test_deslop.py
bash tools/test_cleanse.sh
python3 tools/deslop.py README.md

Examples and sources

• Jasper homepage excerpt: a recorded editing run with the commands and output from that run. Scores can change as rules change.
• Ridgeline Roofing: a longer worked example with before-and-after copy. Check any business facts before reusing a line.
• Source list: Wikipedia's Signs of AI writing and the open-source humanizer projects used to assemble the catalogue. The marketing guidance also draws on Steve Krug, Daniel Priestley and Alex Hormozi.

MIT license.