slop-verify
De la autor
Verification pass for citations, links, package names and vendor residue. Use when someone asks whether the sources in a document are real, asks to check DOIs, ISBNs, arXiv IDs or URLs, asks whether a cited source actually supports the claim attached to it, asks to check that imported packages exist, or asks to strip vendor artifacts such as oaicite, cite spans, lenticular bracket citations, grok cards or utm_source tracking parameters. This is the only layer allowed to hard-fail, because existence and resolution are decidable. It runs the attribution test on every vague authority claim and resolves it to a named source or reports it unresolved. A real source attached to a claim it does not support is a HIGH finding, not a pass. It never states or implies who or what wrote the document.
Instalare
npx skills add AgriciDaniel/anti-slop --skill slop-verify -a claude-code
Se instalează în .claude/skills/slop-verify/ · Fiecare comandă descarcă skill-ul direct de pe GitHub cu utilitarul open source skills.
Identic octet cu octet cu commit-ul scanat, cu licența depozitului și un fișier SOURCE.txt.
Vrei ca agentul să-ți propună skill-uri în timp ce scrii? Vezi cum folosești skill-urile din IDE.
Verificări de siguranță pe SKILL.md
Niciun avertisment.
De ce 80
aiqbench calculează scorul de încredere din semnale publice. Nu este un audit de securitate, așa că citește un skill înainte să-l instalezi.
Skill-uri similare
Cele mai apropiate de acesta prin ce fac și când sunt folosite.
- slop-codeAgriciDaniel/anti-slopSlop review and repair for source code, tests, configuration, generated documentation, README files, commit messages and pull request descriptions. Use when someone asks to review generated or agent-written code for quality, asks whether a diff is padded or ceremonial, asks about hallucinated or slopsquatted imports, or asks to clean up comments, docstrings, wrapper functions, defensive try/except blocks, or tests that assert nothing. Runs the load-bearing test: delete the comment, wrapper, handler or assertion-free test and name what broke. Runs the package existence scanner over every import. Reviews commit and pull request text for canned policy assurances and preserved-information boilerplate. Reports defects with severity and confidence separated, never an authorship verdict, and never a claim that a diff was machine written.Inginerie★ 64
- slop-rewriteAgriciDaniel/anti-slopRepair pass that consumes an existing slop-review findings report and fixes only what it lists. Use when someone asks to clean up, de-slop, tighten, fix or rewrite a draft, documentation page, report or agent output after a review has been produced, or asks to strip vendor residue and placeholder text. Cuts padding that failed the deletion test, replaces vacuous claims that failed the inversion test, resolves or removes vague attributions, and deletes vendor residue. It never invents a fact, name, number, date, quote or citation that is not already in the source. It never re-derives findings and never expands scope beyond the report. The deterministic scanners re-run after every fix and their exit codes, not the model's judgment, decide whether the pass is finished. It never states or implies who or what wrote the original.Testare★ 64
- slop-reviewAgriciDaniel/anti-slopRead-only slop review of prose, documentation, reports, agent output, commit messages or PR descriptions. Use when someone asks what is wrong with a draft, asks for an editorial or quality review, asks whether text is padded, vague, puffed up, unsourced or hollow, or asks whether writing "sounds like AI". Produces a fixed findings report where every finding carries a verbatim quote, a severity (HIGH for a fabricated fact, citation or API, MEDIUM for padding or filler that changes nothing if cut, LOW for stylistic tells) and a separate confidence (low, medium, high), plus the artifact from the structural test that produced it. This skill diagnoses only. It cannot write or edit files, it never rewrites the text it is judging, and it never states or implies who or what wrote the text. Hand its findings to slop-rewrite when the user wants repair.Inginerie★ 64
- anti-slopAgriciDaniel/anti-slopRouter for the anti-slop toolkit. Use when someone asks to review, clean, de-slop, humanize, or quality-check prose, documentation, code, commit messages, PR descriptions, or agent output, or asks whether some writing "sounds like AI". Also use for verifying citations, DOIs, links and imported package names, for stripping vendor residue markers such as oaicite or cite spans, and for auditing padding, filler, puffery, vague attribution and hollow analysis. Explains the three layers (deterministic scanners, structural procedures, evidence-tiered soft signals) and picks the right leaf skill: slop-review for read-only findings, slop-rewrite for repair, slop-code for code and docs, slop-verify for citations, links and packages. Never produces an authorship verdict and never treats a stylistic marker as proof of anything. Use this hub only when the surface or the operation is unclear; otherwise invoke the leaf skill directly.Redactare★ 64
- verifyinggenli-ai/market-research-skillsUse when verifying information (fact, number, quote, event, statement) against authoritative primary sources, or cross-checking a number via one-level metric decomposition (Z = P × Q). Triggers: "verify X", "is this true", "find the original source", "where is this number from", "two sources disagree", "is it true X never did Y". Covers five scenarios: (1) basic truthfulness check, (2) completeness / out-of-context quoting, (3) one-level reasoning verification, (4) negative-statement handling, (5) multi-source conflict side-by-side output. Dig into whitelisted primary sources only (user-supplied files, official websites & databases, authoritative industry sources); cited reports / charts / datasets must be downloaded and read locally to count as verified — if download is blocked, hand the link to the user. If nothing can be found, plainly state "cannot verify" rather than guessing, patching, or citing secondary paraphrases. Always reply in the user's question language.Productivitate★ 64
- source-evaluationnahid-sparktales/agent-dispatcherJudge whether a source can carry the weight you are about to put on it — trace it upstream to something primary, check its date and version, name who benefits if you believe it, test whether corroboration is actually independent, and cite it so a reader can reopen exactly what you read. Use before relying on a claim that changes a decision, when two sources disagree, when a number arrives without its method, or when writing citations. Not for running the overall investigation, and not for deciding between products.Testare★ 59
Note și recenzii
—
nicio recenzie
Ai încercat acest skill? Notează-l ca să-i ajuți pe alții. Autentifică-te
Discuție
Intră în discuție. Autentifică-te