Initial commit: no-AI-slop writing rules and Rossmann voice skills

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-05-24 19:28:13 -05:00
commit ce03e044f3
6 changed files with 780 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
+---
+name: no-ai-slop
+description: "Rules and worked examples for writing prose that does not read like AI-generated slop. Consult before writing or editing any prose."
+---
+
+# No AI Slop
+
+The full rule list lives in the project `CLAUDE.md` (rules 1 through 24). This skill turns the rules that have worked examples into actionable guidance: each shows a WRONG version (the slop) and a RIGHT version (the fix). The pattern behind every fix is the same: replace the vague claim with a specific, checkable fact.
+
+## Rule 1: No emdashes
+
+The character is banned. Use a semicolon, a period, a comma, or restructure.
+
+- WRONG: "The policy -- which affected millions -- was later reversed."
+- RIGHT: "The policy affected millions of devices. The company reversed it in December 2017."
+
+## Rule 4: No intensifiers
+
+"Significantly", "dramatically", "extremely" and their kin are placeholders for evidence. Replace the word with the number it was standing in for.
+
+- WRONG: "The pricing was significantly higher than the cost of the part."
+- RIGHT: "They charged $1,200 for a repair that needed a $5 chip."
+
+## Rule 5: No hollow statements
+
+A sentence that asserts importance without a detail says nothing. End every claim on a concrete fact.
+
+- WRONG: "This practice has had a significant impact on people."
+- RIGHT: "The company replaced 11 million batteries in 2018, against the 1 to 2 million it had expected."
+
+## Rule 7: No structural slop (repetitive layouts)
+
+Three sections built from the same template read as machine output, even when each fact is true. Vary paragraph count, sentence rhythm, and how each section opens.
+
+- WRONG (three sections, identical shape):
+  ```
+  In [year], [party] did [thing]. This affected [number] people. [Party] responded by [action].
+  In [year], [party] did [thing]. This affected [number] people. [Party] responded by [action].
+  In [year], [party] did [thing]. This affected [number] people. [Party] responded by [action].
+  ```
+- RIGHT (vary the shape):
+  ```
+  Section one: a detailed narrative with timeline and context across two paragraphs.
+  Section two: a two-sentence summary, because the event is thinly documented.
+  Section three: opens with the party's stated justification, then the contradicting evidence.
+  ```
+
+## Rule 11: No filler phrases
+
+"In today's world", "It's important to note", "When it comes to" add length, not meaning. Open on the fact.
+
+- WRONG: "In today's world, planned obsolescence affects many devices."
+- RIGHT: "Apple, Samsung, and Google have each faced lawsuits alleging planned obsolescence."
+
+## Rule 13: Write like a researcher, not a copywriter
+
+If a sentence could sit on any advocacy or marketing site without changing a word, it is generic. Anchor it to something checkable.
+
+- WRONG: "People deserve the right to repair their own devices."
+- RIGHT: "The FTC voted 5-0 in July 2021 to step up enforcement against illegal repair restrictions."
+
+## Rule 15: No weasel words
+
+"May potentially", "can help to", "might be able to" hedge a claim into meaninglessness. Either the thing happens or it does not. Say which.
+
+- WRONG: "Serialization may potentially prevent independent repair."
+- RIGHT: "Replacing an iPhone 15 camera module without the manufacturer's calibration software disables optical image stabilization."
+
+## Rule 16: No dramatic headings
+
+A heading names what the section holds. It does not tease, dramatize, or abstract.
+
+- WRONG: "The Hidden Cost of Planned Obsolescence"
+- RIGHT: "Economic impact of shortened product lifespans"
+
+## Rule 19: No fabricated attributions
+
+Never put a position in a named person's mouth from inference. State only what they actually did or said, with the real source.
+
+- WRONG: "Senator Smith has argued that the right to repair is essential."
+- RIGHT: "Senator Smith co-sponsored the Fair Repair Act in January 2024."
+
+## Root-cause differentiation
+
+When you contrast two things, name the concrete difference that separates them. Do not assert that one is exempt, newer, better, or unaffected without saying what specifically makes it so.
+
+- WRONG: "2020+ Leaf models are unaffected and use the MyNISSAN app instead."
+- RIGHT: "2020+ Leaf models shipped with 4G/LTE telematics units connected to a newer cloud platform, replacing the 2G/3G units in earlier models. Those vehicles use the MyNISSAN app, which talks to a different backend."
+
+Whenever you say A differs from B, name the part, the version, the date, the mechanism, or the supply-chain change that makes the difference real. If you do not have that detail, do not imply the difference exists.
+
+## Self-check before returning text
+
+Run this pass on every piece of prose before you hand it back. The full banned lists are in `references/ai-writing-detection.md`; check against them directly.
+
+1. Search for the emdash character. Remove every one (Rule 1).
+2. Scan for banned verbs (delve, leverage, utilize, foster, bolster, underscore, unveil, streamline) and replace with plain equivalents.
+3. Scan for banned adjectives and intensifiers (robust, comprehensive, pivotal, seamless, significantly, extremely, truly) and cut or replace.
+4. Scan for banned transitions and openers (Furthermore, Moreover, That being said, In today's world, It's worth noting that).
+5. Check every number: is it real and attributable? If not, cut it (Rule 2).
+6. Check every sentence ends on a concrete detail, not an assertion of importance (Rule 5).
+7. Check headings: does each name the content rather than tease it (Rule 16)?
+8. Check for repeated points and repeated section shapes (Rules 6, 7).
+9. Count hedging markers per paragraph. More than three is a red flag.
+10. Read it aloud. If a phrase would sound unnatural to a colleague, rewrite it.