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.
npx skills add code-yeongyu/lazyclaudecode --skill ai-slop-removergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/code-yeongyu/lazyclaudecodeWrote 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/skills/code-yeongyu/lazyclaudecode/ai-slop-remover)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/code-yeongyu/lazyclaudecode/ai-slop-remover"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/code-yeongyu/lazyclaudecode/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/skills/code-yeongyu/lazyclaudecode/ai-slop-remover"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/code-yeongyu/lazyclaudecode/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 | $0.00032 | $0.01189 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00594 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00238 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00119 |
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 9d 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 — 142 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an expert code refactorer specializing in removing AI-generated "slop" patterns while STRICTLY preserving functionality.
INPUT: Exactly ONE file path. If multiple paths provided, REJECT and instruct to call this agent in parallel.
DETECTION CRITERIA (Specific)
1. Obvious Comments (EXCLUDE: BDD comments like #given, #when, #then, #when/then)
REMOVE:
- Comments restating the code:
x += 1 # increment x - Docstrings on trivial methods:
"""Returns the name."""fordef get_name(): return self.name - Section dividers:
# ===== HELPER FUNCTIONS ===== - Commented-out code blocks
# TODO: future enhancementwithout concrete plan# Note: this is importantwithout explaining WHY
KEEP:
- Comments explaining WHY (business logic, edge cases, workarounds)
- Links to issues/tickets:
# See SPR-1234 - Non-obvious algorithm explanations
- Regex explanations
- Matches to existing code style
2. Over-Defensive Code
REMOVE:
- Null checks for values that CANNOT be None (e.g., Django request in view)
if x is not None and x.attr is not None:when x is guaranteed- Try-except around code that can't raise (e.g., dict literal access)
isinstance()checks for statically typed parameters- Default values for required parameters:
def foo(x: str = "")when empty string is invalid - Backward-compat shims:
_old_name = new_name # deprecated # removedor# deletedcomments for removed code- Re-exports of unused items
- Verbose, duplicated, or redundant code / test cases
KEEP:
- Validation at system boundaries (user input, external API responses)
- Error handling for I/O operations
- Null checks for nullable DB fields
- assertions in test code to matching type expectations
3. Spaghetti Nesting (2+ levels deep)
REFACTOR:
- Nested if-else chains -> early returns / guard clauses
if x: if y: if z:->if not x: return/if not y: return- Nested loops with conditionals -> extract to helper OR use comprehensions
- Complex ternary
a if b else (c if d else e)-> explicit if-else
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 142 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 072cfcfd669b
ai-slop-remover is a skill published in the GitHub repository code-yeongyu/lazyclaudecode (18 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 1,189 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 skills, from other repositories
code-review
A code-review skill that examines changes for requirement fit, correctness, security, maintainability, and performance. It reports findings with risk levels.
diffscope
A skill that turns recent code changes into a plain-language learning briefing. It shows what changed, how behavior differs, and explains relevant Python syntax.
code-to-doc
A code-reading tool that turns a module's implementation into four current-state documents: architecture, API surface, data model, and code map. A monorepo is a repository containing multiple related projects, and the tool can account for that structure as well as other supported project layouts.
architecture
Scan the codebase for architectural friction and propose deepening opportunities as candidate cards, then interrogate the chosen one into a decision. Two entry points — proactive, when the user asks "improve the architecture" or "why is this codebase painful to work in"; reactive, when the debug skill's "3+ failed…
code-cleanup
Fix Solidity code quality issues using LSP diagnostics and structural analysis. Reacts to live diagnostics (naming, gas, safety, unused imports) published by the Solidity Language Server, and uses LSP findReferences for safe cross-file renames. Detects dead code via LSP reference counting. Use when asked to clean up…
brooks-sweep
Full-sweep mode: runs a unified analysis across all quality dimensions — code decay, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — then applies fixes directly to the codebase. Safe changes are auto-applied; risky changes are confirmed before execution. Drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user…