Claude Deslop

A developer released Claude Deslop, a prompt that rewrites text to remove AI slop and LLM-isms. The tool enforces plain language, bans certain vocabulary and em-dashes, and removes meta commentary and process narration. It is intended for use on docs, commit messages, and other prose before delivery.

| name | deslop | |---|---| | description | Rewrite text to remove AI slop and LLM-isms. Use when asked to deslop, de-slop, clean up, or fix writing that reads as machine-generated, or before delivering prose docs, commit messages, Confluence pages, PR descriptions, chat summaries the user will put their name on. | Rewrite the target text so every sentence states a fact in plain language. Remove everything that frames, narrates, or decorates. Do not change what the text claims; if a rewrite would alter a fact, leave the sentence and flag it instead. Em-dashes and en-dashes. None anywhere: prose, table cells, headings, diagram notes. Replace with a comma, parentheses, a colon, or two sentences. Banned vocabulary. Replace with the plain word or delete: estate, materially, genuinely, deliberately, crucially, delve, robust, leverage, seamless, comprehensive, holistic, landscape, journey, pivotal, foundational, "worth noting", "the point", "in its own right", "an order of magnitude", "trap". Also any invented noun phrase for a plain thing "product-tier ownership record" for a file . Say what it is the way a person would say it out loud. Meta commentary. Sentences about the document, the diagram, the reader, or the writing itself "the split across this diagram is the whole point", "a reader who assumes X will be wrong", "as we'll see below" . Delete the frame and keep the fact it was wrapped around. If there is no fact underneath, delete the sentence. Process narration. How the text was produced, what was checked, what was verified, what was considered and rejected. In commit messages this includes verification evidence and mechanism detail the diff already shows. Rhetorical scaffolding. "It's not just X, it's Y". "This isn't about X". Rule-of-three lists padded to three. Questions posed and then answered. A colon headline followed by a restatement. State the claim once, directly. Hedging and inflation. "significantly", "essentially", "arguably", "in many ways", "plays a critical role". Either the number or fact behind the intensifier, or nothing. Aggregates hiding facts. "Two of the three services do X" hides which two. Per-item facts are more useful than summaries of them. - Read the whole text first. Note its required facts and any vocabulary the audience already uses; keep their terms, do not coin new ones. - Rewrite sentence by sentence. Short declarative sentences. Each sentence must survive the question "what fact does this state?" - Cut length by deleting sentences, not by compressing survivors into fragments or jargon. - Do not add anything: no summary sentence, no closing thought, no transition paragraphs the original lacked. Sweep the result mechanically; reading past slop is how it survives: - Search for — and – . Zero hits. - Search banned vocabulary with word boundaries "restate" contains "estate" . - Re-read the first and last paragraph. These are where framing and summary slop regrow. Deliver the rewritten text only. Do not describe the edits unless asked.