算法艺术创作
algorithmic-art
通过代码和可调参数创作生成艺术与交互式视觉效果。
plan-antislop【设计与创意】Plan-only authenticity / AI-slop audit across prose, UI, code, and IA. Use when "looks like AI slop", "reads like ChatGPT", or "authenticity burndown". One-page UX apply → enhance-web-ux. Visual polish → enhance-web-ui.
独立 GitHub 快照 · 自动分类 · 以原作者文档为准
Degree of freedom: HIGH — inventory tells, score, plan. Stay plan-only. No rewrites until each phase is approved.
| Skill | Owns |
|---|---|
| plan-antislop (this) | Authenticity / slop burndown (plan only) |
enhance-web-ui / enhance-web-ux | Apply polish after the plan |
plan-uiux-unification | Design-system + IA unification |
plan-dead-code | Provably unreachable code, deps, duplication |
Propose: replace the hero dual-clause ("It's not just a tracker, it's a companion") with the concrete benefit already in the docs. Risk: first-screen cadence is the loudest AI tell; readers bounce. Keep-working: settings microcopy is already terse and product-specific. Phase: Phase 1 — copy pass via
docs-writer.
Role: Senior editor + product designer + staff engineer (authenticity lens).
Task: Inventory machine-generated tells across prose, visual/UI, code, and structure/IA.
Score each finding by recognizability × effort, cluster into phased burndowns, emit
plan-antislop.md. Audit & plan only — no rewrites until each phase is approved.
Find the AI tells. Plan their removal. Change nothing until approved.
"Slop" is content that is recognizably machine-generated: technically fine, semantically empty, and uniform in a way no human hand would produce. This skill is the audit-and-plan half of de-slopping. It inventories slop across four surfaces, ranks each finding by recognizability × effort, and emits a phased burndown the user approves before any rewrite happens.
This skill never rewrites. It produces plan-antislop.md. Execution is handed to
enhance-web-ux, enhance-web-ui, enhance-web-landing, design-frontend,
audit-i18n, or docs-writer after approval — same contract as every plan-*
skill in this repo.
Trigger phrases: "this feels AI-generated", "de-slop this", "reads like ChatGPT", "make it sound human", "every page looks identical", "it's generic/templated/soulless", "strip the AI smell before launch", "voice and authenticity pass".
Do not fire for: functional bugs (debug-*), security/RLS
(plan-security-audit), missing tests (plan-test-coverage), or designing a new
surface from scratch (design-frontend). Slop is about recognizability, not
correctness — code can be 100% working and still be 100% slop.
Audit each surface the codebase actually has. Skip surfaces that don't apply (a backend-only repo has no visual surface).
The most detectable surface. Scan all user-facing strings, marketing copy, READMEs, microcopy, error messages, and comments for:
Output for each: file/line, the tell, why a human wouldn't write it, and a direction for the fix (not the fix itself).
The "I've seen this exact app 400 times" surface:
Cross-check against the project's design tokens if audit-uiux-design-system
data or a tokens file exists — slop is often divergence from the design system
plus convergence toward the framework default.
Working code that no engineer would have left as-is:
// TODO: implement, // your logic here,
foo/bar/data/handleClick naming, lorem ipsum, commented-out
scaffolding, console.log('here').// increment i by 1),
docstrings that paraphrase the function name, banner comments around trivial
blocks.utils/helpers/index.ts dumping grounds; premature generics.if (!data) return null guards that can't trigger;
empty catch blocks; types widened to any to silence the compiler.This overlaps audit-code-quality — here the lens is specifically "looks
auto-generated", not general correctness. Flag, don't fix.
It also overlaps plan-dead-code, which owns provable unreachability
(a module-graph fact). Split by which judgment you are making: commented-out
scaffolding and guards that can't trigger are slop because a human would
not have left them, not because a tool proved nothing reaches them. Counts
and deletion of unused files, exports, deps, and duplication belong there.
The shape of the thing:
path:line (or route + screenshot region for visual). Quote the minimum
needed to identify the tell — never paste whole files.docs-writer / audit-i18n): kill cadence tells &
filler vocab. Highest signal, lowest risk, no visual regression.enhance-web-ui / design-frontend): break
the default palette, introduce hierarchy and one intentional focal point per
view, de-monotonize the card grids.enhance-web-ux / enhance-web-landing): fix IA,
replace symmetrical scaffolding with purpose-driven structure.audit-code-quality / workflow-refactor):
placeholder residue, comment slop, over-abstraction.plan-antislop.md (template below), then end the turn with a standalone recap in chat: the two or three highest-impact findings and the first phase to approve. The file is the deliverable — write it before the recap.
Do not start Phase 1. Wait for explicit approval per phase — the
approved-plan-execution.mdc handoff contract applies.--brand-500"
is actionable; "use nicer colors" is not.path:line (or route + region) plus the telldebug-*; new surface from scratch → design-frontendplan-antislop.md# Anti-Slop Burndown — <repo/route>
_Audit-only. Nothing changes until each phase is approved._
## Scope
- Surfaces audited: [ ] Prose [ ] Visual [ ] Code [ ] Structure
- Out of scope / assumptions: …
## Slop score (at a glance)
| Surface | Findings | High-recognizability | Top quick win |
|------------|----------|----------------------|---------------|
| Prose | n | n | … |
| Visual | n | n | … |
| Code | n | n | … |
| Structure | n | n | … |
## Findings
### Prose & copy
| # | Location | Tell | Why it reads as AI | Recog | Effort | Direction |
|---|----------|------|--------------------|-------|--------|-----------|
| P1 | hero/page.tsx:24 | "It's not just a tracker, it's a companion" | dual-clause hype cadence | High | S | state the concrete benefit plainly |
### Visual & UI
| # | Route/region | Tell | Recog | Effort | Direction |
|---|--------------|------|-------|--------|-----------|
### Code
| # | path:line | Tell | Recog | Effort | Direction |
|---|-----------|------|-------|--------|-----------|
### Structure & IA
| # | Location | Tell | Recog | Effort | Direction |
|---|----------|------|-------|--------|-----------|
## Phased burndown
- **Phase 1 — Copy pass** → `docs-writer` / `audit-i18n` — items P1, P3, P7…
- **Phase 2 — Visual identity** → `enhance-web-ui` / `design-frontend` — V1, V2…
- **Phase 3 — UX & flow** → `enhance-web-ux` / `enhance-web-landing` — S1, S4…
- **Phase 4 — Code cleanup** → `audit-code-quality` / `workflow-refactor` — C2…
## Execution handoff
Approve a phase to run it. Suggested order maximizes authenticity-per-effort.
Re-run `plan-antislop` after execution to confirm the burndown closed.
plan-uiux-unification; run after it so
visual-slop findings inherit the design-system burndown.enhance-web-ux, enhance-web-ui, enhance-web-landing,
design-frontend, audit-i18n, docs-writer, workflow-refactor.test-playwright (does it still work?) and a
second plan-antislop pass (did the slop actually drop?).Plan at high effort. Execute after approval at the default effort under
approved-plan-execution.mdc(no reward hacking, no feature deletion). The plan says which slop to remove; the rule constrains how.