{"slug": "reviewing-slop-pull-requests", "title": "★ Reviewing slop pull requests", "summary": "A developer at Perrotta.dev describes a two-step workflow for reviewing AI-generated pull requests using two custom skills: /meat, which converts a diff into a reading guide, and /dual-review, which runs two review passes to validate findings. The sequence is recommended for long, plausible PRs to reduce narrative noise and unsupported findings.", "body_md": "♠ **Problem statement**: review an AI-written ~~slop~~ pull request from a\nteammate.\n\nWe’ll use a [clanker](https://lucumr.pocoo.org/2026/5/26/clankers/) to review slop\nPRs.\n\n**First**, I invoke the\n[ /meat](https://github.com/thiagowfx/skills/blob/master/plugins/thiagowfx/skills/meat/SKILL.md)\nskill, turning the diff into a reading guide, inspired by\n\n```\n/meat <PR-URL>\n```\n\nIt does not look for defects. It captures the diff once, follows control and data flow, treats tests as specifications, and returns this shape:\n\n```\nOne sentence with intent and observable result.\n\n## Read in this order\n- path:line — why this contract matters\n\n## Flow\n1. input\n2. transformation\n3. effect\n\n## Contracts\n## Tests as specs\n## Omitted\n```\n\nThat gives me the author’s system model (the “meat” of their PR) without the PR body’s narrative.\n\n**Second**, `/dual-review`\n\n1\ntries to break that model:\n\n```\n/dual-review <PR-URL> [--post]\n```\n\nIt runs *two* review passes with different lenses / perspectives, then validates\nevery candidate against source and focused probes. Reviewer agreement changes\ninvestigation priority.\n\nTo recap:\n\n`/meat`\n\nsays what the change means and where to read it.`/dual-review`\n\nchecks whether contracts survive hostile input.My default sequence for a long, plausible PR is now:\n\n```\n/meat <PR-URL>\n/dual-review <PR-URL> --post\n```\n\nOne tool removes narrative noise. The other removes findings without evidence.\n\nInspired by an internal skill created by our CISO. [↩︎](https://perrotta.dev/2026/08/reviewing-slop-pull-requests/#fnref:1)\n\n— § —\n\nReply via [email](mailto:serendipity@perrotta.dev?subject=Reply to: Reviewing slop pull requests)", "url": "https://wpnews.pro/news/reviewing-slop-pull-requests", "canonical_source": "https://perrotta.dev/2026/08/reviewing-slop-pull-requests/", "published_at": "2026-08-17 22:47:17+00:00", "updated_at": "2026-08-17 23:12:38.671846+00:00", "lang": "en", "topics": ["developer-tools", "ai-tools"], "entities": ["Perrotta.dev", "/meat", "/dual-review"], "alternates": {"html": "https://wpnews.pro/news/reviewing-slop-pull-requests", "markdown": "https://wpnews.pro/news/reviewing-slop-pull-requests.md", "text": "https://wpnews.pro/news/reviewing-slop-pull-requests.txt", "jsonld": "https://wpnews.pro/news/reviewing-slop-pull-requests.jsonld"}}