Ai audit
My personal Claude Code skills, open-sourced one at a time. First up: ai-audit for detecting AI slop.
npx -y skills add Ajeesh25353646/claude-skills --skill ai-auditAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 0 stars0 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Detect and report AI fingerprints / slop in projects. Run a comprehensive audit looking for the recognizable tells of AI-generated content across three dimensions: COPY (em dashes, LLM prose tics, marketing buzzwords, aphoristic cadence), DESIGN (overused fonts, gradient text, glassmorphism, card-grid patterns, AI color palettes), and CODE (verbose AI-style comments, over-engineering, generic naming, hallucinated imports). Auto-detects the right mode from context — override with --mode copy|design|code|full. Always use this when the user says "audit", "ai slop", "ai fingerprints", "quality check", "review this page", "check for ai", "remove ai tells", or expresses concern that something looks/sounds like it was generated by AI.
SKILL.md
6.3 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
AI Audit Skill
Audit any project or piece of content for recognizable AI fingerprints — the visual, copy, and code patterns that AI models default to. The skill produces a structured report you can act on directly.
How Mode Detection Works
The skill picks the right audit scope automatically, using this priority:
- User's explicit words — "audit this landing page" →
design+copy. "check this function" →code. "audit everything" →full. - Files in context — if the user attached / mentioned specific files, peek at their extensions and content to guess the mode.
- Project scan — glance at the directory structure.
.py/.js/.tsfiles suggest code..html/.css/.jsxsuggest design..md/.txtsuggest copy. - Fallback — if nothing is clear, run
full(all three modes).
Override: Pass --mode copy, --mode design, --mode code, or --mode full to force a specific scope.
When the mode is ambiguous (e.g., user just says "audit this" with nothing else to go on), ask briefly rather than guessing wrong.
Workflow
When invoked, follow these steps:
1. Determine Scope
Figure out the mode. If forced via --mode, use that. Otherwise, apply the priority chain above. If truly ambiguous after checking, ask.
2. Load Reference Rules
Based on the mode, read the relevant reference file(s):
| Mode | Reference file | What it covers |
|---|---|---|
| copy | references/copy-fingerprints.md | LLM prose tells, buzzwords, em dashes, cadence patterns |
| design | references/design-fingerprints.md | Visual anti-patterns, overused fonts, AI color palettes, layout patterns |
| code | references/code-fingerprints.md | AI comment patterns, over-engineering, generic naming, hallucinated imports |
| full | All three | Everything — this is the comprehensive audit |
Read the reference file(s) in full — each is designed to load on demand and contains the specific patterns to look for.
3. Scan the Target
If files are specified (user named a file, passed a URL, or a file is in their message):
- Read the file(s) or fetch the URL content
- Apply the relevant rule set(s) from the reference files
- For each rule, check the content systematically
If no files are specified but the user wants to audit the project:
- Scan the current directory for relevant files (by extension per mode)
- Pick the most likely targets (e.g., main pages, key components, entry points)
- Sample a representative set — don't read every file in a large project
- Apply the relevant rule set(s)
If the user pasted content inline, audit that content directly.
4. Generate the Report
Print the report to stdout AND write it to ai-audit-report.md in the current directory.
Optionally also write ai-audit-report.json for programmatic use.
Use the report template below. Every finding should include enough context for someone reading the report to understand what was found, why it's a fingerprint, and how to fix it.
5. Natural Next Steps
After the report lands in context and on disk, Claude or the user can naturally act on it — fix the em dashes, swap out the font, clean up the code — because the report lists actionable fixes alongside each finding. No special fix mode is needed; the report is the trigger.
Report Template
# AI Audit Report
**Target:** <file(s) or description>
**Mode:** copy | design | code | full
**Date:** <date>
## Summary
- **Total findings:** N
- **AI Slop Score:** 0–4 (0 = heavy AI fingerprints, 4 = no detectable tells)
- **By severity:** P0: X, P1: Y, P2: Z
- **By category:** copy: X, design: Y, code: Z
## Findings
### [P0|P1|P2] Finding Title
- **Location:** `file.ts:42`
- **Category:** copy/design/code
- **What:** The exact text or pattern found
- **Why it's a tell:** Brief explanation of why this reads as AI-generated
- **Fix:** Specific, actionable suggestion for what to change it to
...
## No Issues Found
If the audit finds no detectable AI fingerprints, report that plainly.
No fake findings. If it's clean, say so.
Severity Guide
- P0 — Definite slop: Unambiguously an AI tell. Em dashes in bulk,
--mode=codgradient text, overused fonts, LLM cadence patterns. Should be fixed. - P1 — Likely slop: Strong signal. Cream/beige palette, single font for everything, aphoristic copy. Worth fixing but may be intentional in context.
- P2 — Advisory: Weak signal. Something that could be AI-generated but might also be a deliberate choice. Flag it but don't insist.
Scoring
The AI Slop Score follows Impeccable's convention:
| Score | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 4 | No detectable AI fingerprints — clean |
| 3 | Minor tells — a few patterns but not pervasive |
| 2 | Moderate — several clear signals |
| 1 | Heavy — obvious AI generation throughout |
| 0 | AI slop gallery — every page/section has multiple tells |
Score from 4 and subtract per finding: P0 = -1.5, P1 = -1, P2 = -0.5. Clamp to [0, 4].
Important Constraints
- Be honest about clean content. The skill's credibility depends on not hallucinating findings. If content reads human-written, say so.
- Be specific, not vague. Don't say "this looks AI-generated" without pointing to a concrete pattern from the reference file. Every finding must have a detectable, nameable pattern behind it.
- Don't over-audit dependencies. Code audit should focus on the project's own code, not library code in
node_modules/,.venv/, or similar. - Severity matters. A single em dash in 2000 words is P2, not P0. Context and density are everything.