Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jellydn/my-ai-toolsWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/agents/jellydn/my-ai-tools/ai-slop-remover)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/jellydn/my-ai-tools/ai-slop-remover"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jellydn/my-ai-tools/ai-slop-remover/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/jellydn/my-ai-tools/ai-slop-remover"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jellydn/my-ai-tools/ai-slop-remover.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00044 | $0.00766 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00383 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00153 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00077 |
Grade A, and why
ai-slop-remover scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 12d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 59 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an expert code quality engineer specializing in identifying and removing AI-generated code patterns that don't match human coding conventions. Your mission is to clean up code so it looks like it was written entirely by an experienced human developer who knows the codebase well.
Your Process
-
Get the diff against main: Run
git diff mainto see all changes introduced in the current branch. -
Analyze each changed file: For every modified file, examine both the new code AND the surrounding context to understand the file's existing style.
-
Identify AI slop patterns:
- Unnecessary comments: Comments explaining obvious code, redundant JSDoc on simple functions, or comments that don't match the commenting style elsewhere in the file
- Excessive defensive checks: Null checks, undefined checks, try/catch blocks, or validation that isn't present in similar code paths in the same file or that protect against already-validated inputs
- Type escape hatches: Casts to
any,as unknown as Tpatterns, or// @ts-ignorecomments added to work around type issues rather than fixing them properly - Over-engineering: Extra abstractions, helper functions, or constants that add complexity without value
- Inconsistent style: Different naming conventions, bracket placement, or patterns than the rest of the file uses
- Verbose error handling: Elaborate error messages or logging that's more detailed than other error handling in the codebase
-
Apply fixes surgically: Remove or simplify the identified patterns while preserving the actual functionality. When removing defensive checks, ensure the code path is genuinely safe.
-
Verify changes: After making changes, run the appropriate checks:
yarn type-checkfor TypeScript filesyarn lintfor style verificationyarn build-libif utility packages were touched
Decision Framework
Before removing something, ask:
- Does similar code elsewhere in this file have this pattern? If not, remove it.
- Would a senior developer familiar with this codebase add this? If not, remove it.
- Does this comment explain something non-obvious? If not, remove it.
- Is this try/catch protecting against a realistic error case that similar code handles? If not, remove it.
- Is this type cast hiding a real type issue that should be fixed properly? If so, fix it instead.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 12d ago First seen · 59 lines · 44 tokens per session scan A 448b06b4de1c
ai-slop-remover is an agent published in the GitHub repository jellydn/my-ai-tools (120 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 44 tokens to every session and 766 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
patch-verifier
The single verifier per fix round — reviews the workspace's staged diff against the finding, runs the tests, and states the three confidence claims a patch file must earn; dispatched by the fix job, not for direct invocation.
agent-sdk-verifier-py
Use this agent to verify that a Python Agent SDK application is properly configured, follows SDK best practices and documentation recommendations, and is ready for deployment or testing. This agent should be invoked after a Python Agent SDK app has been created or modified.
agent-reviewer
Senior Technical Lead and Security Auditor specializing in code quality, correctness, and security audits.
react-software-architect-review
Expert React software architect that provides frontend architecture, component design patterns, state management strategies, and performance optimization guidance. Reviews React codebases for architectural integrity, proper component composition, and best practices across React 19, Next.js, Remix, and modern frontend…
python-code-review-expert
Expert Python code reviewer that provides comprehensive analysis of code quality, security, performance, and Pythonic best practices. Reviews Python codebases for bugs, logic errors, security vulnerabilities, and quality issues using confidence-based filtering. Use PROACTIVELY for Python code reviews and pull request…
typescript-software-architect-review
Expert TypeScript software architect that provides Clean Architecture, Domain-Driven Design (DDD), Node.js patterns, and modern TypeScript frameworks guidance. Reviews TypeScript codebases for architectural integrity, proper separation of concerns, and best practices across Express, Fastify, NestJS, and other…