Install
openclaw skills install slopbusterAI text humanizer for prose, code, and academic writing. Strips AI-generated patterns and restores human voice. Use when editing or reviewing text to make it sound naturally human-written, when cleaning up AI-generated code comments and naming, or when revising academic papers flagged for AI patterns.
openclaw skills install slopbusterStrip AI-generated patterns from text and code. Not a grammar pass — a voice transplant.
Works on prose, code, commits, docstrings, academic papers. Anything an LLM touched.
Two-pass audit. First pass catches the patterns. Second pass catches what the first pass missed — because removing AI patterns can itself create new ones (sterile, voiceless writing is just as obvious as slop).
/slopbuster <file_or_text> # Auto-detect mode, standard depth
/slopbuster <file> --mode text|code|academic # Force specific mode
/slopbuster <file> --depth quick|standard|deep
/slopbuster <file> --score-only # Just score, don't rewrite
Detect automatically from file extension and content, or specify explicitly.
| Mode | Targets | Rule files loaded |
|---|---|---|
text | Prose, marketing, blog posts, docs, emails | text-content, text-language, text-style, text-communication, text-structure |
code | Source files, comments, naming, commits, docstrings | code-comments, code-naming, code-commits, code-docstrings, code-quality, code-llm-tells |
academic | Research papers, theses, abstracts | academic (49 rules, section-specific) |
auto | Detects from context | Loads relevant rule files |
| Depth | What happens | Best for |
|---|---|---|
quick | Single pass, obvious patterns only, no scoring | Fast edits, social copy |
standard | Full pattern scan + two-pass audit + score + changelog | Anything going public |
deep | Full scan + voice calibration against writer's sample + style guide generation | Ghostwriting, brand voice matching |
Default: standard
Read the input. Load the relevant rule files based on mode. Identify every matching pattern. Score the original.
For text mode, read these rule files:
rules/text-content.md — significance inflation, promotional language, vague attributions, formulaic challengesrules/text-language.md — AI vocabulary, copula avoidance, synonym cycling, false ranges, negative parallelisms, rule of threerules/text-style.md — em dashes, boldface, inline-header lists, title case, emojis, curly quotesrules/text-communication.md — chatbot artifacts, sycophancy, disclaimers, filler phrases, hedging, generic conclusionsrules/text-structure.md — structural anti-patterns and how to fix themFor code mode, read these rule files:
rules/code-comments.md — 18 comment anti-patternsrules/code-naming.md — 14 naming anti-patternsrules/code-commits.md — 10 commit message anti-patternsrules/code-docstrings.md — 8 docstring anti-patternsrules/code-quality.md — error handling, API design, test anti-patternsrules/code-llm-tells.md — 16 structural code tellsFor academic mode, read:
rules/academic.md — 49 rules across 10 groups with section-specific guidanceFor voice and soul guidance (all modes), read:
guides/voice-and-soul.md — how to inject personality, not just strip patternsguides/style-template.md — if deep mode, use this to build a custom voice profileFor scoring reference, read:
scoring.md — unified scoring systemApply pattern removals. Inject human voice markers (varied rhythm, specificity, opinion, contractions, active voice). Preserve meaning, facts, and key arguments.
Ask yourself: "What still makes this obviously AI-generated?" List the remaining tells in brief bullets. Then revise again to kill those tells.
This step is critical. Removing AI patterns without adding soul produces sterile writing that's equally detectable — just by a different classifier.
Score the final version. Generate a changelog. Flag anything that needs manual review.
ORIGINAL SCORE: 3.8/10 (AI-heavy)
MODE: text | DEPTH: standard
--- DRAFT REWRITE ---
[first pass rewrite]
--- WHAT'S STILL AI ABOUT THIS? ---
- [remaining tells as brief bullets]
--- FINAL VERSION ---
[second pass rewrite]
FINAL SCORE: 8.4/10 (human-like)
CHANGES MADE:
- Removed 7 hedging phrases ("It's important to note", "arguably")
- Replaced 4 corporate buzzwords ("leverage" -> "use")
- Fixed 3 robotic patterns (parallel structure overuse)
- Added 5 specific examples (replaced vague references)
- Shortened 8 sentences (>40 words -> 15-25 words)
FLAGS FOR MANUAL REVIEW:
- Paragraph 3: Still uses "various" — suggest specific companies
- Paragraph 7: Transition feels abrupt — consider adding context
FILE SAVED: example-HUMAN.md
MODE: code | DEPTH: standard
FILES SCANNED: 3
--- CHANGES ---
src/auth.ts:
L12: Comment "// Initialize authentication" -> deleted (tautological)
L34: Variable `userDataObject` -> `user` (verbose compound name)
L67: Comment "// We validate the input" -> "// Reject expired tokens — see #1234"
COMMIT MSG REWRITE:
"Enhanced authentication flow with improved error handling"
-> "reject expired OAuth tokens at middleware boundary"
SCORE: 4.2 -> 8.1
MODE: academic | DEPTH: standard
FIELD: [detected or specified]
SECTION: [detected or specified]
--- DIAGNOSIS ---
- "plays a crucial role" — Group B Rule 6: significance filler
- "Moreover," — Group B Rule 5: transition padding
- "This finding suggests" — Group F Rule 25: abstract noun subject
--- REVISED TEXT ---
[revised version]
--- CHANGES ---
- [3-6 items with rationale]
SCORE: 3.5 -> 7.8
Not just subtraction. Good humanization requires injection too.
Read guides/voice-and-soul.md for the full guide. Quick summary:
/slopbuster document.md --preserve-formal
Keeps formal language. Removes obvious cliches only. Target: 7+/10. For white papers, case studies, business docs.
/slopbuster paper.md --mode academic --field biomedical --section discussion
Preserves disciplinary conventions. Passive voice in Methods stays. Target: 6.5+/10.
/slopbuster src/ --mode code
Scans all source files. Rewrites comments, flags naming issues, suggests commit message fixes.
/slopbuster doc.md --depth deep --voice-sample author-sample.md
Analyzes the voice sample first, builds a style profile, then matches the rewrite to that voice.
See scoring.md for the full system. Quick reference:
Human-ness scale (0-10):
Scoring uses three tiers:
Higher tier matches weigh more because they're stronger AI signals.
Built from analyzing 1,000+ AI vs human content samples across marketing, technical, creative, and academic writing. Cross-referenced against peer-reviewed LLM detection research (Kobak et al. 2025, Liang et al. 2024, Juzek & Ward COLING 2025) and Wikipedia's Signs of AI writing (CC BY-SA 4.0).
Makes AI-generated content sound human again — in prose, code, and papers.