Back to Details

no-ai-slop

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

No AI Slop

拒绝AI式垃圾文字

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.
完整规则列表位于项目文件
CLAUDE.md
中（规则1至24）。本技能将带有实例的规则转化为可操作的指导：每条规则都会展示错误版本（垃圾文字）和正确版本（修正后的内容）。所有修正背后的逻辑一致：用具体、可查证的事实替代模糊的表述。

Rule 1: No emdashes

规则1：禁止使用破折号

The character is banned. Use a semicolon, a period, a comma, or restructure.
  • WRONG: "The policy -- which affected millions -- was later reversed."
  • RIGHT: "The policy affected millions of devices. The company reversed it in December 2017."
该字符被禁用。请使用分号、句号、逗号，或重构句子。
  • 错误示例："这项政策——影响了数百万人——后来被推翻了。"
  • 正确示例："这项政策影响了数百万台设备。公司于2017年12月将其推翻。"

Rule 4: No intensifiers

规则4：禁止使用强化词

"Significantly", "dramatically", "extremely" and their kin are placeholders for evidence. Replace the word with the number it was standing in for.
  • WRONG: "The pricing was significantly higher than the cost of the part."
  • RIGHT: "They charged $1,200 for a repair that needed a $5 chip."
“Significantly”“dramatically”“extremely”及其同类词汇都是缺乏证据的占位符。请用具体数字替代这些词。
  • 错误示例："定价远高于零件成本。"
  • 正确示例："他们对仅需5美元芯片的维修收取1200美元费用。"

Rule 5: No hollow statements

规则5：禁止空洞表述

A sentence that asserts importance without a detail says nothing. End every claim on a concrete fact.
  • WRONG: "This practice has had a significant impact on people."
  • RIGHT: "The company replaced 11 million batteries in 2018, against the 1 to 2 million it had expected."
只强调重要性却无细节支撑的句子毫无意义。所有表述都要以具体事实收尾。
  • 错误示例："这种做法对人们产生了重大影响。"
  • 正确示例："2018年，公司更换了1100万块电池，远超其预期的100至200万块。"

Rule 7: No structural slop (repetitive layouts)

规则7：禁止结构型垃圾（重复布局）

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.
  • WRONG (three sections, identical shape): 
    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].
  • RIGHT (vary the shape): 
    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.
三个采用相同模板构建的章节，即便内容属实，读起来也像机器生成的产物。要改变段落数量、句子节奏以及各章节的开篇方式。
  • 错误示例（三个结构完全相同的章节）： 
    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].
  • 正确示例（多样化结构）： 
    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.

Rule 11: No filler phrases

规则11：禁止填充语

"In today's world", "It's important to note", "When it comes to" add length, not meaning. Open on the fact.
  • WRONG: "In today's world, planned obsolescence affects many devices."
  • RIGHT: "Apple, Samsung, and Google have each faced lawsuits alleging planned obsolescence."
“In today's world”“It's important to note”“When it comes to”这类短语只会增加篇幅，毫无实际意义。直接开门见山陈述事实。
  • 错误示例："在当今世界，计划性报废影响着许多设备。"
  • 正确示例："苹果、三星和谷歌均因被指控计划性报废而面临诉讼。"

Rule 13: Write like a researcher, not a copywriter

规则13：像研究者一样写作，而非文案写手

If a sentence could sit on any advocacy or marketing site without changing a word, it is generic. Anchor it to something checkable.
  • WRONG: "People deserve the right to repair their own devices."
  • RIGHT: "The FTC voted 5-0 in July 2021 to step up enforcement against illegal repair restrictions."
如果一句话无需修改就能放在任何宣传或营销网站上，那它就是通用套话。要将表述锚定到可查证的内容上。
  • 错误示例："人们有权自行维修设备。"
  • 正确示例："2021年7月，联邦贸易委员会以5比0的投票结果加强对非法维修限制的执法力度。"

Rule 15: No weasel words

规则15：禁止含糊其辞的词语

"May potentially", "can help to", "might be able to" hedge a claim into meaninglessness. Either the thing happens or it does not. Say which.
  • WRONG: "Serialization may potentially prevent independent repair."
  • RIGHT: "Replacing an iPhone 15 camera module without the manufacturer's calibration software disables optical image stabilization."
“May potentially”“can help to”“might be able to”这类表述会让主张变得毫无意义。一件事要么发生，要么没发生，直接说明情况。
  • 错误示例："序列化可能会阻碍独立维修。"
  • 正确示例："未使用制造商校准软件更换iPhone 15相机模块会导致光学图像稳定功能失效。"

Rule 16: No dramatic headings

规则16：禁止夸张标题

A heading names what the section holds. It does not tease, dramatize, or abstract.
  • WRONG: "The Hidden Cost of Planned Obsolescence"
  • RIGHT: "Economic impact of shortened product lifespans"
标题应明确章节内容，而非制造悬念、夸张或抽象化表述。
  • 错误示例："计划性报废的隐性成本"
  • 正确示例："产品寿命缩短的经济影响"

Rule 19: No fabricated attributions

规则19：禁止虚构归因

Never put a position in a named person's mouth from inference. State only what they actually did or said, with the real source.
  • WRONG: "Senator Smith has argued that the right to repair is essential."
  • RIGHT: "Senator Smith co-sponsored the Fair Repair Act in January 2024."
切勿仅凭推断将某个观点归到特定人物名下。只陈述他们实际的言行，并附上真实来源。
  • 错误示例："史密斯参议员认为维修权至关重要。"
  • 正确示例："史密斯参议员于2024年1月共同发起了《公平维修法案》。"

Root-cause differentiation

根源差异区分

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.
  • WRONG: "2020+ Leaf models are unaffected and use the MyNISSAN app instead."
  • RIGHT: "2020+ Leaf models shipped with 4G/LTE telematics units connected to a newer cloud platform, replacing the 2G/3G units in earlier models. Those vehicles use the MyNISSAN app, which talks to a different backend."
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.
对比两件事物时，要点明区分它们的具体差异。不要在未说明具体原因的情况下，断言某一方不受影响、更新、更优或与众不同。
  • 错误示例："2020年及以后的Leaf车型不受影响，改用MyNISSAN应用。"
  • 正确示例："2020年及以后的Leaf车型配备了连接至全新云平台的4G/LTE远程信息处理单元，取代了早期车型中的2G/3G单元。这些车型使用MyNISSAN应用，该应用连接的是不同的后端系统。"
无论何时说明A与B不同，都要指明部件、版本、日期、机制或供应链变化等具体差异。如果没有这些细节，就不要暗示差异存在。

Self-check before returning text

文本交付前的自我检查

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.
在交付任何文字前，都要完成以下检查。完整的禁用列表位于
references/ai-writing-detection.md
中，请直接对照检查。
  1. 搜索破折号字符，全部删除（规则1）。
  2. 扫描禁用动词（delve、leverage、utilize、foster、bolster、underscore、unveil、streamline），替换为平实的同义词。
  3. 扫描禁用形容词和强化词（robust、comprehensive、pivotal、seamless、significantly、extremely、truly），删除或替换。
  4. 扫描禁用过渡语和开篇语（Furthermore、Moreover、That being said、In today's world、It's worth noting that）。
  5. 检查所有数字：是否真实可溯源？如果不是，删除该数字（规则2）。
  6. 检查每个句子是否以具体细节收尾，而非仅强调重要性（规则5）。
  7. 检查标题：每个标题是否明确内容而非制造悬念（规则16）？
  8. 检查是否有重复观点和重复章节结构（规则6、7）。
  9. 统计每段中的含糊表述标记。超过三个即为危险信号。
  10. 大声朗读。如果某个表述在同事听来不自然，请重写。