---

name: slop-grading description: > Review the output of slop-grader, interpret flagged lines and document scores, distinguish genuine violations from false positives, and produce a concrete fix plan with edited text for each real issue.

Slop Grading — Review & Fix Plan

You receive the output of slop-grader (human-readable text or JSON via --json) and the original source file. Available built-in rulesets can be listed with slop-grader --list-rulesets (or -l, --json to inspect scopes, rule counts, and rule IDs). Line evaluations are cached by default; pass --no-cache to force full re-evaluation, or --concurrency <num> to cap concurrent API requests (defaults to 5). Your job is to triage every flagged line, dismiss false positives, and produce a minimal fix plan with exact replacement text for every genuine violation.

Output formats of slop-grader

The tool emits either human-readable text (default) or structured JSON (via --json / -j).

Format A — Human-readable text

Rules:
  /absolute/path/to/no-ai-slop.md
  /absolute/path/to/article-scores.md

A=banned_word, B=empty_adverb, C=importance_puffery   ← legend

A,C           | L0003: The launch marks a pivotal moment for the company.
B             | L0007: This is just a small update.

## Document Scores

engagement       2.7/3   (confidence high)  "Holds attention — creates genuine curiosity..."
narrative_arc    1.4/3   (confidence mid)   "Loosely organized" ↔ "Clear progression"
closing_strength 0.3/3   (confidence high)  "Trails off or optimizes"

## Stats

Rules applied:                6 (5 line, 1 document)
Lines evaluated:              12
Questions asked:              61
API calls:                    6
Questions evaluated via API:  61
Cache hits:                   0

• Legend: maps letters to rule IDs (A–Z, AA–ZZ).
• Flagged lines: <letters> | <line-marker>: <original text>. Only lines that crossed the threshold (default 0.8) appear. If line rules are evaluated but no violations are found, No line rule violations found. is displayed.
• Document Scores: probability-weighted mean position across 4 levels (0–3), confidence tier (high ≥ 0.8, mid 0.5–0.79, low < 0.5), and descriptions.
• Stats (optional): execution metrics appended when --stats is passed. Ignore this block during triage.
• Debug (optional): when --debug is passed, API calls are logged to stderr; ignore stderr output during triage.
• Lines with no flags are clean — do not touch them.

Format B — Structured JSON (--json)

{
  "file": "/abs/path/to/my-draft.txt",
  "rules": ["/abs/path/to/no-ai-slop.md"],
  "violations": {
    "lines": [
      { "lineNum": 1, "text": "Our platform empowers teams...", "rules": ["banned_word"] }
    ],
    "document": {
      "narrative_arc": { "score": 1.4, "max": 3, "confidence": 0.72, "label": "Loosely organized" }
    }
  },
  "stats": {
    "rules": 6,
    "lineRules": 5,
    "docRules": 1,
    "lines": 12,
    "questions": 61,
    "apiCalls": 6
  }
}

• violations.lines: list of flagged lines with 1-indexed lineNum, original text, and array of rules.
• violations.document: document-level quality scores and boolean rule violations. Map numerical confidence to tiers: high (≥ 0.8), mid (0.5–0.79), low (< 0.5).
• stats: execution metrics. Ignore during triage.
• Clean output: violations.lines and violations.document are empty when no issues are detected.

Step 1 — Parse

1. Check for clean output: If no lines are flagged and no document scores need attention (or violations.lines and violations.document are empty in JSON), report that the document is clean and stop.
2. For human-readable text: Read the legend. Map each letter back to its rule ID and the rule's plain-English meaning. List each flagged line with its rule(s) spelled out.
3. For JSON: Read violations.lines directly; rule IDs and line numbers are already explicit. Map each violations.document confidence value to its tier (high, mid, low).

Step 2 — Triage (dismiss false positives first)

For each flag, ask: does the rule genuinely apply here in context?

Common false positive patterns to dismiss without a fix:

Flag	Dismiss when…
empty_adverb	The adverb carries the writer's emphasis, contrast, or spoken rhythm
banned_word	The word is used in a quote, technical name, or proper noun
binary_contrast	The negation is genuine contrast, not a rhetorical reveal
dramatic_fragmentation	The fragment is natural spoken prose, not a mic-drop device
passive_voice_overuse	The actor is unknown or the object deserves emphasis
academic_semicolon	The clauses are tightly parallel and the semicolon reads naturally
spelling_and_confused_words	The English term is established in the target domain
colon_reveal	The colon introduces a list or definition, not drama
synonym_cycling	The different terms mark a real distinction, not variety for style
punctuation_and_typography	The sentence is a list item or headline where a comma is grammatically optional
bold_lead_in_list	The list is a genuine technical checklist, spec, API reference, or collection of distinct items where list structure aids scanning

When you dismiss a flag, state the reason in one sentence. Do not suggest a fix.

Step 3 — Fix plan

For every flag you did not dismiss, produce:

Line <N> — <rule_id>
Original: <exact original text>
Fix:      <minimal rewrite — change as little as possible>
Reason:   <one sentence>

Rules for the fix:

• Minimum effective edit. Change only what the rule requires. Leave the rest of the sentence untouched.
• Preserve the writer's voice. Don't improve style beyond what the rule demands.
• No fix chains. Fix one violation per line. If a line has multiple genuine flags, address each as a separate fix block.
• Legal flags are non-negotiable. Rules from the legal rulebook (scraped_photo_reference, missing_gross_price, unverified_ranking, disguised_commercial_intent, etc.) are always genuine — never dismiss them as false positives. The fix may be a deletion, a label addition, or a disclosure insertion rather than a rewrite.

Step 4 — Summary

After all fix blocks, output a one-line count:

X flags reviewed — Y dismissed as false positives, Z fixes applied.

Step 5 — Document Scores (if present)

If the output contains a Document Scores block, interpret it after the line-flag summary.

For each score:

• Skip axes where score ≥ 2.5 and confidence is high — the article is strong there, nothing to say.
• Flag for attention any axis with score < 2.0 or confidence low.
• For flagged axes, write one sentence naming the weakness and one concrete suggestion for how the author could move up one level.

Format:

Document Scores — 3 axes need attention:

narrative_arc    1.4/3  (confidence mid)
  The sections relate to the topic but don't build — add a bridging
  sentence at the end of each section that sets up the next.

closing_strength 0.3/3  (confidence high)
  The ending summarises rather than lands — replace the final paragraph
  with a single decision rule or provocation the reader takes away.

Low-confidence scores (↔ display) are genuine uncertainty — name both levels and let the author judge which fits.

Example

Human-readable input

Input:

A=banned_word, B=importance_puffery, C=empty_adverb

A,B           | L0001: Our platform empowers teams to unlock their full potential.
C             | L0005: This is just a routing fix.

Output:

L0001 — banned_word Dismissed: "empowers" is on the banned list. Genuine violation.

L0001 — importance_puffery Dismissed: "unlock their full potential" is vague puffery. Genuine violation.

Line 1 — banned_word + importance_puffery
Original: Our platform empowers teams to unlock their full potential.
Fix:      Our platform helps teams ship faster.
Reason:   Removes "empowers" (banned) and replaces "unlock their full potential" with a concrete outcome.

L0005 — empty_adverb Dismissed: "just" here signals the scope of the change — it's not decorative. False positive.

2 flags reviewed — 1 dismissed as false positive, 1 fix applied (2 rules merged into 1 edit).

JSON input

Input:

{
  "violations": {
    "lines": [
      {
        "lineNum": 1,
        "text": "Our platform empowers teams to unlock their full potential.",
        "rules": ["banned_word", "importance_puffery"]
      },
      {
        "lineNum": 5,
        "text": "This is just a routing fix.",
        "rules": ["empty_adverb"]
      }
    ]
  }
}

Produces the exact same triage, fix plan, and summary as the human-readable input above.