♠ Problem statement: review an AI-written slop pull request from a
teammate.
We’ll use a clanker to review slop PRs.
First, I invoke the /meat skill, turning the diff into a reading guide, inspired by
/meat <PR-URL>
It does not look for defects. It captures the diff once, follows control and data flow, treats tests as specifications, and returns this shape:
One sentence with intent and observable result.
## Read in this order
- path:line — why this contract matters
## Flow
1. input
2. transformation
3. effect
## Contracts
## Tests as specs
## Omitted
That gives me the author’s system model (the “meat” of their PR) without the PR body’s narrative.
Second, /dual-review
1 tries to break that model:
/dual-review <PR-URL> [--post]
It runs two review passes with different lenses / perspectives, then validates every candidate against source and focused probes. Reviewer agreement changes investigation priority.
To recap:
/meat
says what the change means and where to read it./dual-review
checks whether contracts survive hostile input.My default sequence for a long, plausible PR is now:
/meat <PR-URL>
/dual-review <PR-URL> --post
One tool removes narrative noise. The other removes findings without evidence.
Inspired by an internal skill created by our CISO. ↩︎
— § —
Reply via [email](mailto:serendipity@perrotta.dev?subject=Reply to: Reviewing slop pull requests)