ai-audit
Skill0 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
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.
4 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- sunitghub/canon-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 22, 2026
- Bartosh16/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Aug 28, 2026
- AlonMiz/ai-audittheir own version, first seen Aug 25, 2026
- kumaran-is/claude-code-onboardingtheir own version, first seen May 25, 2026
Other versions4 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 4
- kumaran-is/claude-code-onboarding★ 35same name
- sunitghub/canon-skills★ 9same name
- AlonMiz/ai-audit★ 4same name
- Bartosh16/claude-skills★ 3same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository2 other files it gives its agents.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 4 edited versions we read keep these.
6
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 28
When the mode is ambiguous (e.g., user just says "audit this" with nothing else to go on), ask briefly rather than guessing wrong.
- Distinctive: line 32
When invoked, follow these steps:
- Distinctive: line 49
Read the reference file(s) in full — each is designed to load on demand and contains the specific patterns to look for.
- Distinctive: line 54
Read the file(s) or fetch the URL content
- Distinctive: line 71
Use the report template below.
- Distinctive: line 133
Be specific, not vague: Don't say "this looks AI-generated" without pointing to a concrete pattern from the reference file.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 4 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
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.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

