rossmann-voice
Louis Rossmann's writing voice for general prose: testable-number density, high sentence-length variance, claim-then-proof…
Rules and worked examples for writing prose that does not read like AI-generated slop. Consult before writing or editing any prose.
$ npx -y skills add realrossmanngroup/no_ai_slop_writing_rules --skill no-ai-slop --agent claude-codeHow it fires
How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
/no-ai-slopContext preview
The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.
Rules and worked examples for writing prose that does not read like AI-generated slop. Consult before writing or editing any prose.
name: no-ai-slop description: "Rules and worked examples for writing prose that does not read like AI-generated slop. Consult before writing or editing any prose."
The full rule list lives in the project `CLAUDE.md` (rules 1 through 24). This skill turns the rules that have worked examples into actionable guidance: each shows a WRONG version (the slop) and a RIGHT version (the fix). The pattern behind every fix is the same: replace the vague claim with a specific, checkable fact.
The character is banned. Use a semicolon, a period, a comma, or restructure.
"Significantly", "dramatically", "extremely" and their kin are placeholders for evidence. Replace the word with the number it was standing in for.
A sentence that asserts importance without a detail says nothing. End every claim on a concrete fact.
Three sections built from the same template read as machine output, even when each fact is true. Vary paragraph count, sentence rhythm, and how each section opens.
In [year], [party] did [thing]. This affected [number] people. [Party] responded by [action]. In [year], [party] did [thing]. This affected [number] people. [Party] responded by [action]. In [year], [party] did [thing]. This affected [number] people. [Party] responded by [action].
Section one: a detailed narrative with timeline and context across two paragraphs. Section two: a two-sentence summary, because the event is thinly documented. Section three: opens with the party's stated justification, then the contradicting evidence.
"In today's world", "It's important to note", "When it comes to" add length, not meaning. Open on the fact.
If a sentence could sit on any advocacy or marketing site without changing a word, it is generic. Anchor it to something checkable.
"May potentially", "can help to", "might be able to" hedge a claim into meaninglessness. Either the thing happens or it does not. Say which.
A heading names what the section holds. It does not tease, dramatize, or abstract.
Never put a position in a named person's mouth from inference. State only what they actually did or said, with the real source.
When you contrast two things, name the concrete difference that separates them. Do not assert that one is exempt, newer, better, or unaffected without saying what specifically makes it so.
Whenever you say A differs from B, name the part, the version, the date, the mechanism, or the supply-chain change that makes the difference real. If you do not have that detail, do not imply the difference exists.
Run this pass on every piece of prose before you hand it back. The full banned lists are in `references/ai-writing-detection.md`; check against them directly.
1. Search for the emdash character. Remove every one (Rule 1). 2. Scan for banned verbs (delve, leverage, utilize, foster, bolster, underscore, unveil, streamline) and replace with plain equivalents. 3. Scan for banned adjectives and intensifiers (robust, comprehensive, pivotal, seamless, significantly, extremely, truly) and cut or replace. 4. Scan for banned transitions and openers (Furthermore, Moreover, That being said, In today's world, It's worth noting that). 5. Check every number: is it real and attributable? If not, cut it (Rule 2). 6. Check every sentence ends on a concrete detail, not an assertion of importance (Rule 5). 7. Check headings: does each name the content rather than tease it (Rule 16)? 8. Check for repeated points and repeated section shapes (Rules 6, 7). 9. Count hedging markers per paragraph. More than three is a red flag. 10. Read it aloud. If a phrase would sound unnatural to a colleague, rewrite it.
# 👋 Hi, you were probably sent here. ## If someone handed you a link to this repo, it is because you sent them AI-generated shit so obviously AI-generated that they stopped reading partway through and went looking for a polite way to say "run it through a
Louis Rossmann's writing voice for general prose: testable-number density, high sentence-length variance, claim-then-proof…