Ran it in my codebase, detected some good stuff, was able to pass the issues to my agent so they can be validated and fixed. Good job!

I'd love for it to have flags for Pi and Crush too :)

I don't think this approach is wise.

Concentrate on code quality, and whether it does what it needs to do. Not whether it was written by AI or not.

A linter with rules for AI-specific weirdness is absolutely a great idea, thank you! Are there any plans to support other languages besides javascript?

The intent is good, but frankly, credibility is lost by using "slop" words imo, OP you might seriously want to re-evaluate who is the target market, probably users that leverage high automation 24/7, startups and so-on, they don't want to incorporate products that talks about the modern way (and somehow only way to compete) of development as "slop" imo because soon enough, it's not true anymore (it's already not true with the right tooling).

Related, we made "Antislop", a framework for removing repetitive phraseology from LLMs: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.15061

> I’ve been building aislop.

This made me chuckle.

Cool tool, the dead code checks can be very helpful. I’ve seen Claude leave unused functions when iterating which always frustrates me.

Can you explain the benefits of running this over rector / eslint? (and to certain degree phpstan / deptrac)

I tried it on my codebase. There's a lot of overlap with tools like Oxlint / ESLint, I'm not sure that's too valuable vs. a more focused tool that actually focuses solely on 'slop' signals. These lint rules tend to get very opinionated which is why those tools expose so many configuration options.

One real bug tho:

> [ERROR] Imports "mdast" but it's not declared in package.json

A type-only import like `import type { Blockquote, RootContent } from 'mdast';` is actually acceptable if `"@types/mdast": "^4.0.4"` is included in the package.json.

awesome work, someone is caring about using less token :clap:

>They aren’t syntax and passes most tests

What?

I tried it but see a lot of false positives.

One funny thing I see it doing is deleting seemingly random comments lines, for example if a file has a comment that spans multiple lines but doesn’t use a multi line comment syntax. It just chooses one at random transforming the once useful comment into slop.

Apparently I need to check in with a Doctor because code written by myself is seen as AI, and the lazy AI bits aren't. More Human than Human?

I think a lot of the telltale signs of AI can be found in the comments. Besides the slop writing style, I've found AI comments to 1. be overly verbose, 2. unnecessarily describe before/after code state (# This function used to do foo, but now it does bar), and 3. reference its own internal "plan" (# This function is part of Stage 3 of the implementation of Use Case X from the requirements doc) WTF is Stage 3? - says code reader 2 years from now. Although I bet you can probably prompt these behaviors away.

Petition to rename this “SlopCop”