# ★ Reviewing slop pull requests

> Source: <https://perrotta.dev/2026/08/reviewing-slop-pull-requests/>
> Published: 2026-08-17 22:47:17+00:00

♠ **Problem statement**: review an AI-written ~~slop~~ pull request from a
teammate.

We’ll use a [clanker](https://lucumr.pocoo.org/2026/5/26/clankers/) to review slop
PRs.

**First**, I invoke the
[ /meat](https://github.com/thiagowfx/skills/blob/master/plugins/thiagowfx/skills/meat/SKILL.md)
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. [↩︎](https://perrotta.dev/2026/08/reviewing-slop-pull-requests/#fnref:1)

— § —

Reply via [email](mailto:serendipity@perrotta.dev?subject=Reply to: Reviewing slop pull requests)