From 74e66bbeb26fd2ec9911842dd69d80bdccf4d480 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ario Barin Ostovary <89481178+Doomsy1@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2026 13:40:32 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 1/4] edit from meaning and source voice --- codex/AGENTS.md | 11 ++- codex/skills/unslop/SKILL.md | 93 ++++++----------------- codex/skills/unslop/references/sources.md | 22 +++++- 3 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 75 deletions(-) diff --git a/codex/AGENTS.md b/codex/AGENTS.md index dc19f6a..9367f03 100644 --- a/codex/AGENTS.md +++ b/codex/AGENTS.md @@ -2,8 +2,15 @@ ## Writing -- Do not use em dashes or en dashes. Use other punctuation or separate - sentences. +Use plain language and develop connected ideas as prose. Lists help when the +reader needs to scan or compare separate items. Let the material decide the +shape instead of giving every answer the same structure. + +An instruction is also an example. Write agent-facing guidance in the language +and style you want the agent to use, and explain enough of the reason for it +that the agent can judge a different case. + +Do not use em dashes or en dashes. Use other punctuation or separate sentences. ## Git And Pull Requests diff --git a/codex/skills/unslop/SKILL.md b/codex/skills/unslop/SKILL.md index 5849d74..c1fb191 100644 --- a/codex/skills/unslop/SKILL.md +++ b/codex/skills/unslop/SKILL.md @@ -1,82 +1,33 @@ --- name: unslop -description: "Writing and editing: remove recognizable AI tells and add human voice. Apply to user-facing prose, docs, explanations, PR text, and other natural-language output." +description: "Write or edit prose that sounds canned, inflated, repetitive, or unlike its author. Use for explanations, documentation, PR text, and personal writing; preserve the speaker's meaning and voice when working from their words." --- # Unslop -Edit text to remove AI patterns and add human voice. +Get the point before polishing the sentence. Work out what the reader needs to +understand and what the passage contributes. A vague paragraph can stay empty +after you shorten it or replace the fancy words. Sometimes it should be cut. -## Process +When editing someone's account, start with their wording. Their cadence, +uncertainty, and choice of emphasis tell you how they are thinking. Remove +transcription noise and repetition that adds nothing, but notice when a repeated +phrase carries emphasis or a false start shows a change of mind. Keep their +humor and opinions without inventing more personality for them. -1. Scan for the patterns below. -2. Rewrite. Preserve meaning and match the intended tone. -3. Add soul. -4. Self-audit: "What makes this obviously AI generated?" Fix the remaining tells. +Make explanations concrete. Name what happened, how something works, or why a +choice matters. Replace unsupported praise with the fact behind it; when there +is no fact, drop the claim. Use technical terms when they help the reader +understand, and ordinary words when they say the same thing. -## Adding soul +Let the thought determine the structure. A connected explanation needs room to +develop; separate options may be easier to compare in a list. Contrast helps +when the alternative matters. Repeating the same opening, three-part list, or +tidy conclusion can flatten very different material into the same answer. -Removing patterns is half the job. Sterile, voiceless writing is just as obvious. +Read the revision beside the source. It should be easier to follow without +changing the claim, removing a meaningful uncertainty, or replacing the +speaker. Smoothness alone is not a reason to rewrite a sentence that already +works. -- **Have opinions.** React to facts instead of neutrally listing pros and cons. -- **Vary rhythm.** Short sentences. Then longer ones that take their time. Mix it up. -- **Acknowledge complexity.** "Impressive but also kind of unsettling" beats "impressive." -- **Use "I" when it fits.** First person isn't unprofessional. -- **Let some mess in.** Perfect structure looks machine-made. -- **Be specific.** Not "this is concerning" but "there's something unsettling about agents churning away at 3am." - -## Patterns to detect and fix - -### Content - -1. **Puffery.** "pivotal moment", "testament to", "evolving landscape", "setting the stage for", "indelible mark", "deeply rooted". Cut puffery, state what happened. -2. **Name-dropping.** Listing media outlets without context. Pick one, say what was said. -3. **Superficial -ing phrases.** "highlighting...", "ensuring...", "reflecting...", "showcasing...", "fostering...". Delete or expand with real sources. -4. **Promotional language.** "nestled", "vibrant", "breathtaking", "groundbreaking", "renowned", "stunning", "must-visit". Use neutral descriptions. -5. **Vague attributions.** "Experts believe", "Industry reports suggest", "Some critics argue". Name the source or delete. -6. **Formulaic challenges.** "Despite challenges... continues to thrive." Replace with specific facts. - -### Language - -7. **AI vocabulary.** Additionally, crucial, delve, enduring, enhance, fostering, garner, interplay, intricate, landscape (abstract), pivotal, showcase, tapestry (abstract), testament, underscore, vibrant. Replace with plain words. -8. **Fancy ways to say "is".** "serves as", "stands as", "boasts", "features". Just say "is" or "has". -9. **"Not just X, but Y."** State the point directly instead. -10. **Rule of three.** Forcing ideas into groups of three. Use the natural number. -11. **Synonym cycling.** Protagonist, main character, central figure, hero all in one paragraph. Pick one, repeat it. -12. **False ranges.** "from X to Y" where X and Y aren't on a meaningful scale. List topics directly. - -### Style - -13. **Em dash overuse.** Avoid em dashes entirely. Use periods or commas. If a thought needs separation, end the sentence. -14. **Colon overuse.** Colons are fine before a list or example. Not as mid-sentence connectors. Rewrite so the point stands on its own. -15. **Boldface overuse.** Don't bold every proper noun or acronym. -16. **Inline-header lists.** The tell is a bold label and colon that restates the line: "**Performance:** Performance improved...". Convert those to prose. A bold lead-in that names the item and is followed by genuinely new detail is fine. -17. **Title case headings.** Use sentence case. -18. **Decorative emojis.** Remove them from headings and bullets. -19. **Curly quotes.** Replace with straight quotes. - -### Communication artifacts - -20. **Chatbot phrases.** "I hope this helps!", "Let me know if...", "Of course!", "Certainly!", "Found the smoking gun!" Remove. -21. **Cutoff disclaimers.** "While specific details are limited..." Find sources or remove. -22. **Sycophantic tone.** "Great question! You're absolutely right!" Respond directly. - -### Filler - -23. **Filler phrases.** "In order to" becomes "To". "Due to the fact that" becomes "Because". "It is important to note that" gets deleted. -24. **Excessive hedging.** "could potentially possibly be argued that it might" becomes "may". -25. **Generic conclusions.** "The future looks bright." State specific plans or facts. - -### Jargon - -26. **Abstract metaphor nouns.** Substrate, wedge, vector, locus, vantage, nexus, primitive (as noun), harness (as metaphor), surface (as in "API surface"), bedrock, scaffolding (as metaphor), modality, paradigm, gold-plating, ratchet (as metaphor), evacuate (for moving code), endgame, north star, flywheel. These read as technical but usually have a plainer concrete word. "Substrate" becomes "base". "Wedge in" becomes "add". "Vector" becomes "way" or "method". "Gold-plating" becomes "more than the job needs". "Ratchet" becomes the mechanism's real name or "a limit that only tightens". "Evacuate" becomes "move out". "Endgame" becomes "the last phase". Pick the concrete word. - -### Plain speech - -27. **Say what it does, not how it feels.** "the database stays close at hand", "SQL you can read", "types that follow your schema" name a feeling. The fix names the mechanism or a number: "`.toSQL()` returns the exact string sent to the database", "a column rename fails the build". Ask what the sentence tells the reader to do or know, then write that. If you can't restate it as a concrete instruction, fact, or number, cut it. If the sentence could appear unchanged in another project's docs, it says nothing about this one. Cut it. -28. **Shorten or split dense sentences.** If the reader has to backtrack to parse a sentence, break it in two or drop clauses. One idea per sentence. -29. **Active voice.** Prefer it. Catch "is/are/was/were + past participle" and name the actor: "queries are validated" becomes "the compiler validates queries". Passive is fine only when the actor is unknown or genuinely doesn't matter. -30. **Cut adverbs, or use a stronger verb.** "runs quickly" becomes "is fast" or the number. "significantly improves" becomes the measured delta. An adverb propping up a weak verb means the verb is wrong. -31. **Prefer the plain word.** "utilize" becomes "use", "leverage" becomes "use", "facilitate" becomes "help", "numerous" becomes "many", "in the event that" becomes "if". The fancier synonym is rarely clearer. - -Source provenance lives in [references/sources.md](references/sources.md). Do not load it during normal writing. +Source provenance lives in [references/sources.md](references/sources.md). diff --git a/codex/skills/unslop/references/sources.md b/codex/skills/unslop/references/sources.md index 6819d7f..0d0bbec 100644 --- a/codex/skills/unslop/references/sources.md +++ b/codex/skills/unslop/references/sources.md @@ -2,13 +2,31 @@ Read this provenance when auditing or revising Unslop, not during normal writing. -The skill is substantially derived from Lauren Tan's `unslop` skill in pstack: +Compass originally adapted Lauren Tan's `unslop` skill in pstack: - Source: https://github.com/cursor/plugins/blob/51a96e0dd838404da19ba83dc70aa21eef71f868/pstack/skills/unslop/SKILL.md - Repository license: MIT - Upstream copyright: Copyright (c) 2026 Lauren Tan -Compass keeps the upstream failure catalog and forceful wording where they change model behavior, while pruning or simplifying a small number of house-style details. +The September 2026 revision keeps its useful distinctions about empty claims, +plain language, and repetitive structure. It removes the instruction to add +personality and the fixed editing checklist after the user's portfolio review +showed how those can conflict with preserving a speaker's actual account. + +The user described wording and cadence as part of the thought, and asked for +agent guidance that demonstrates the writing it requests. These are editorial +requirements from that review, not a claim that list formatting caused the +model's failures. + +[Warp's account of improving its agents](https://claude.com/blog/how-warp-builds-self-improving-agents-on-claude) +(August 26, 2026; read September 5) supports explaining the reason behind an +instruction and making focused changes from observed feedback. It does not +establish that this particular revision improves model behavior. + +[Oral History Association best practices](https://oralhistory.org/best-practices/) +(read September 5, 2026) informs preserving the narrator's perspective and +meaning when editing an account. Its interview and approval procedures are not +part of this general writing skill. ## Upstream license From 906f691cec9a8a3997205313e25f0535532f9506 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ario Barin Ostovary <89481178+Doomsy1@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2026 14:42:19 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 2/4] tighten global writing guidance --- codex/AGENTS.md | 10 ++++------ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/codex/AGENTS.md b/codex/AGENTS.md index 9367f03..721694f 100644 --- a/codex/AGENTS.md +++ b/codex/AGENTS.md @@ -2,13 +2,11 @@ ## Writing -Use plain language and develop connected ideas as prose. Lists help when the -reader needs to scan or compare separate items. Let the material decide the -shape instead of giving every answer the same structure. +Use plain language. Choose a structure that helps the reader follow the thought. -An instruction is also an example. Write agent-facing guidance in the language -and style you want the agent to use, and explain enough of the reason for it -that the agent can judge a different case. +An instruction is also an example. Write agent-facing guidance in the style you +want the agent to use. Explain why the instruction matters so the agent can +apply it in new situations. Do not use em dashes or en dashes. Use other punctuation or separate sentences. From c891e8bfbf3cf8f01b5b0162a80050b70e69f9aa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ario Barin Ostovary <89481178+Doomsy1@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2026 14:56:22 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 3/4] scope writing guidance to public prose --- codex/AGENTS.md | 9 ++----- codex/skills/unslop/SKILL.md | 33 +++++++---------------- codex/skills/unslop/references/sources.md | 32 +++++++++------------- 3 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-) diff --git a/codex/AGENTS.md b/codex/AGENTS.md index 721694f..dc19f6a 100644 --- a/codex/AGENTS.md +++ b/codex/AGENTS.md @@ -2,13 +2,8 @@ ## Writing -Use plain language. Choose a structure that helps the reader follow the thought. - -An instruction is also an example. Write agent-facing guidance in the style you -want the agent to use. Explain why the instruction matters so the agent can -apply it in new situations. - -Do not use em dashes or en dashes. Use other punctuation or separate sentences. +- Do not use em dashes or en dashes. Use other punctuation or separate + sentences. ## Git And Pull Requests diff --git a/codex/skills/unslop/SKILL.md b/codex/skills/unslop/SKILL.md index c1fb191..54ee2cd 100644 --- a/codex/skills/unslop/SKILL.md +++ b/codex/skills/unslop/SKILL.md @@ -1,33 +1,18 @@ --- name: unslop -description: "Write or edit prose that sounds canned, inflated, repetitive, or unlike its author. Use for explanations, documentation, PR text, and personal writing; preserve the speaker's meaning and voice when working from their words." +description: "Edit public-facing prose from the author's own words, such as website copy, bios, posts, or articles. Use when shaping their account for publication." --- # Unslop -Get the point before polishing the sentence. Work out what the reader needs to -understand and what the passage contributes. A vague paragraph can stay empty -after you shorten it or replace the fancy words. Sometimes it should be cut. +Start with the author's words. Their cadence, uncertainty, and emphasis are +part of the account. Remove transcription noise and repetition that adds +nothing, but keep a repeated phrase when it carries emphasis or a false start +when it shows a change of mind. Preserve their humor and opinions without +inventing personality. -When editing someone's account, start with their wording. Their cadence, -uncertainty, and choice of emphasis tell you how they are thinking. Remove -transcription noise and repetition that adds nothing, but notice when a repeated -phrase carries emphasis or a false start shows a change of mind. Keep their -humor and opinions without inventing more personality for them. - -Make explanations concrete. Name what happened, how something works, or why a -choice matters. Replace unsupported praise with the fact behind it; when there -is no fact, drop the claim. Use technical terms when they help the reader -understand, and ordinary words when they say the same thing. - -Let the thought determine the structure. A connected explanation needs room to -develop; separate options may be easier to compare in a list. Contrast helps -when the alternative matters. Repeating the same opening, three-part list, or -tidy conclusion can flatten very different material into the same answer. - -Read the revision beside the source. It should be easier to follow without -changing the claim, removing a meaningful uncertainty, or replacing the -speaker. Smoothness alone is not a reason to rewrite a sentence that already -works. +Organize and clarify so a reader can follow the account. A smoother sentence +is not enough reason to replace one that already works. Read the revision +beside the source and check that the thought and person are still recognizable. Source provenance lives in [references/sources.md](references/sources.md). diff --git a/codex/skills/unslop/references/sources.md b/codex/skills/unslop/references/sources.md index 0d0bbec..d13f2d8 100644 --- a/codex/skills/unslop/references/sources.md +++ b/codex/skills/unslop/references/sources.md @@ -8,25 +8,19 @@ Compass originally adapted Lauren Tan's `unslop` skill in pstack: - Repository license: MIT - Upstream copyright: Copyright (c) 2026 Lauren Tan -The September 2026 revision keeps its useful distinctions about empty claims, -plain language, and repetitive structure. It removes the instruction to add -personality and the fixed editing checklist after the user's portfolio review -showed how those can conflict with preserving a speaker's actual account. - -The user described wording and cadence as part of the thought, and asked for -agent guidance that demonstrates the writing it requests. These are editorial -requirements from that review, not a claim that list formatting caused the -model's failures. - -[Warp's account of improving its agents](https://claude.com/blog/how-warp-builds-self-improving-agents-on-claude) -(August 26, 2026; read September 5) supports explaining the reason behind an -instruction and making focused changes from observed feedback. It does not -establish that this particular revision improves model behavior. - -[Oral History Association best practices](https://oralhistory.org/best-practices/) -(read September 5, 2026) informs preserving the narrator's perspective and -meaning when editing an account. Its interview and approval procedures are not -part of this general writing skill. +The September 5, 2026 revision removes the general writing checklist and its +instruction to add personality. The user clarified that preserving their +cadence and uncertainty applies to their website and other public-facing +writing, not code work. This skill now covers editing an author's account for +publication; it does not supply general coding or communication instructions. + +Sources read September 5, 2026: + +- [GPT-6 Astra prompting guidance](https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/guides/latest-model#instruction-following): audit skills because stronger instruction following makes their contents more consequential. +- [Fable 5 prompting guidance](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/build-with-claude/prompt-engineering/prompting-claude-fable-5#recommended-scaffolding-changes): older, prescriptive skills can reduce quality; compare against defaults. +- [Fable 5.1 prompting guidance](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/build-with-claude/prompt-engineering/prompting-claude-fable-5-1#formatting-in-chat): older anti-formatting instructions can now suppress useful structure. +- [Matt Pocock's authoring guidance](https://github.com/mattpocock/skills/blob/3cca18b368ae95cdbdebbff572ccafa662551015/skills/productivity/writing-for-agents/SKILL.md): delete instructions that do not change behavior relative to the current model. This is practitioner guidance, not a GPT-6 comparison. +- [Oral History Association best practices](https://oralhistory.org/best-practices/): preserve a narrator's perspective and meaning. Its interview and approval procedures are outside this skill's scope. ## Upstream license From 2a963c438d83d01780a2717117e07bf741b09d36 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ario Barin Ostovary <89481178+Doomsy1@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2026 15:04:41 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 4/4] restore unslop as a prose editor --- codex/skills/unslop/SKILL.md | 42 +++++++++++++++++------ codex/skills/unslop/references/sources.md | 17 +++++---- 2 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) diff --git a/codex/skills/unslop/SKILL.md b/codex/skills/unslop/SKILL.md index 54ee2cd..f7cdb8c 100644 --- a/codex/skills/unslop/SKILL.md +++ b/codex/skills/unslop/SKILL.md @@ -1,18 +1,40 @@ --- name: unslop -description: "Edit public-facing prose from the author's own words, such as website copy, bios, posts, or articles. Use when shaping their account for publication." +description: "Remove canned AI-writing patterns from explanations, documentation, PR text, and public prose. Use when a draft is inflated, formulaic, vague, or repetitive, or when the user asks to unslop writing." --- # Unslop -Start with the author's words. Their cadence, uncertainty, and emphasis are -part of the account. Remove transcription noise and repetition that adds -nothing, but keep a repeated phrase when it carries emphasis or a false start -when it shows a change of mind. Preserve their humor and opinions without -inventing personality. +Edit the writing to remove AI patterns. Preserve its meaning and intended tone; +do not invent opinions, anecdotes, or personality to make it seem human. -Organize and clarify so a reader can follow the account. A smoother sentence -is not enough reason to replace one that already works. Read the revision -beside the source and check that the thought and person are still recognizable. +## Patterns to notice -Source provenance lives in [references/sources.md](references/sources.md). +- **Empty praise.** "Groundbreaking", "seamless", and "a testament to" often + stand in for facts. State what happened or how it works. Drop unsupported + claims rather than inventing evidence for them. +- **Vague authority.** "Experts believe" and "industry reports suggest" need + an identifiable source. Name it if supported; otherwise remove the attribution + and check whether the claim itself has support. +- **Inflated language.** Prefer "use" to "utilize" and "is" to "serves as". + Replace decorative metaphors with their literal meaning. Keep technical terms + when they are precise and useful to the intended reader. +- **Mechanical structure.** Forced contrasts, three-part lists, and generic + conclusions give unrelated material the same shape. Use the natural number + of points; keep a contrast when the alternative helps explain the choice. +- **Redundant presentation.** Cut filler such as "it is important to note" and + bold labels that merely repeat the sentence. Use headings, emphasis, and lists + when they help the reader navigate, compare, or follow steps. +- **False variety.** Calling the same thing a tool, platform, solution, and + ecosystem can obscure what it is. Repeat the accurate name. Cut stacked + hedges such as "could potentially possibly" while retaining qualifications + that change the claim. +- **Canned rapport.** "Great question!", automatic agreement, and stock closing + offers can sound pasted on. Answer directly. Warmth, humor, and a distinctive + voice can stay when they belong to the passage. + +These are clues to a writing problem, not a banned-word list. Change a passage +where the pattern weakens it; leave useful structure and working sentences alone. + +Source provenance lives in [references/sources.md](references/sources.md). Do not +load it during normal writing. diff --git a/codex/skills/unslop/references/sources.md b/codex/skills/unslop/references/sources.md index d13f2d8..33c4b2c 100644 --- a/codex/skills/unslop/references/sources.md +++ b/codex/skills/unslop/references/sources.md @@ -8,11 +8,12 @@ Compass originally adapted Lauren Tan's `unslop` skill in pstack: - Repository license: MIT - Upstream copyright: Copyright (c) 2026 Lauren Tan -The September 5, 2026 revision removes the general writing checklist and its -instruction to add personality. The user clarified that preserving their -cadence and uncertainty applies to their website and other public-facing -writing, not code work. This skill now covers editing an author's account for -publication; it does not supply general coding or communication instructions. +The September 5, 2026 revision consolidates the upstream pattern catalog while +removing the instruction to add personality and blanket rules about formatting +or vocabulary. Patterns remain useful editorial clues: lists, contrasts, and +technical terms can be appropriate. Unslop applies to prose with recognizable +AI-writing problems, including technical explanations and PR text. The user's +detailed source-voice preferences belong to their website's editorial guidance. Sources read September 5, 2026: @@ -20,7 +21,11 @@ Sources read September 5, 2026: - [Fable 5 prompting guidance](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/build-with-claude/prompt-engineering/prompting-claude-fable-5#recommended-scaffolding-changes): older, prescriptive skills can reduce quality; compare against defaults. - [Fable 5.1 prompting guidance](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/build-with-claude/prompt-engineering/prompting-claude-fable-5-1#formatting-in-chat): older anti-formatting instructions can now suppress useful structure. - [Matt Pocock's authoring guidance](https://github.com/mattpocock/skills/blob/3cca18b368ae95cdbdebbff572ccafa662551015/skills/productivity/writing-for-agents/SKILL.md): delete instructions that do not change behavior relative to the current model. This is practitioner guidance, not a GPT-6 comparison. -- [Oral History Association best practices](https://oralhistory.org/best-practices/): preserve a narrator's perspective and meaning. Its interview and approval procedures are outside this skill's scope. + +These sources support revisiting instructions and retaining useful distinctions. +They do not establish that every older rule is redundant or that this particular +catalog improves every draft. The accompanying comparisons are limited editing +checks, not a general quality benchmark. ## Upstream license