# Useful Or Cut > Hostile usefulness filter for prose — use when drafting or editing a blog post, essay, or other written piece. - **Type:** Skill - **Install:** `agentstack add skill-pktikkani-agent-skills-useful-or-cut` - **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior - **Seller:** [pktikkani](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/pktikkani) - **Installs:** 0 - **Category:** [Agent Skills](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/agent-skills) - **Latest version:** 0.1.0 - **License:** MIT - **Upstream author:** [pktikkani](https://github.com/pktikkani) - **Source:** https://github.com/pktikkani/agent-skills/tree/main/claude/skills/useful-or-cut ## Install ```sh agentstack add skill-pktikkani-agent-skills-useful-or-cut ``` Requires the [AgentStack CLI](https://agentstack.voostack.com/docs/cli). Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any MCP-compatible agent. ## About # Useful or Cut Based on Shreyas Doshi's flowchart: *Is it useful? → Yes: take what's useful, ignore the rest. → No: ignore the rest.* The flowchart is a reader's filter. This skill runs it in reverse, against the draft, before the reader ever sees it. The agent plays hostile reader on its own output. **The core rule: the "no" branch is deletion, not revision.** In the original, "no" loops back to *ignore the rest*. Here it means cut the sentence. Do not soften it, hedge it, or rewrite it into something adequate. Cut it. ## Workflow ### 1. Find the actual claim Before writing anything, state in one sentence what the user is claiming, and what a reader can do differently after reading it. Show this to the user and get agreement. If the idea doesn't support a claim — if it's an observation, not an argument — say so. Do not manufacture an argument to fill the shape of a blog post. ### 2. Size the piece to the idea Estimate the length the idea can carry at full density. State the number before drafting. Common outcomes: a sharp idea is 400–800 words; a genuinely developed argument is 1200–1800. **Never write to a target length.** If the user asks for 1500 words and the idea supports 600, write 600 and say why. Padding to hit a number is the single largest source of slop. ### 3. Draft Write it. Don't self-censor during drafting — the cutting pass handles that. Use the user's own words, examples, and framings from the conversation wherever they exist. Their specifics are the part no generic model output can replicate; they are the density. ### 4. The cut pass (mandatory — never skip, never merge into step 3) Go paragraph by paragraph. For each one, write in **ten words or fewer** what the reader takes away. Delete the paragraph if: - You can't complete that sentence - The takeaway duplicates an earlier paragraph's - The takeaway is "context," "setup," "transition," or "restates the above" - It's true but the reader already believed it Then go sentence by sentence inside the survivors and do it again. Expect to cut 30–50% of the draft. **If you cut less than 20%, you did the pass wrong — run it again, harder.** The common failure is grading your own writing generously. ### 5. Known slop shapes — cut on sight - **Throat-clearing openers.** "In today's fast-paced world," "We've all been there," any scene-setting before the claim. Start at the claim. - **The restating conclusion.** A final section that summarizes what was just said. End on the last real point. - **"It's not X, it's Y."** Fine once per piece, maybe. Three times is a tic. - **Rhetorical questions as transitions.** "So what does this mean for you?" Just say the thing. - **Hedge stacks.** "It's worth noting that it may in some cases be possible that…" - **Inflated lists.** Six items where three are real and three were generated to reach six. Ship three. - **Symmetry padding.** Giving a weak counterpoint equal space because the structure looked balanced. - **Adjective pairs.** "clear and concise," "robust and scalable." Pick one or neither. - **Explaining the obvious to sound thorough.** If your reader knows what an API is, don't define it. The following six shapes are adapted from [petergyang/no-ai-slop](https://github.com/petergyang/no-ai-slop) (MIT): - **Colon reveals.** A noun phrase, a colon, then a dramatic reveal: "The best part: it learns." Rewrite as a plain sentence. Colons are for lists, labels, and quotes, not fake drama. - **Superficial `-ing` analysis.** Trailing clauses that pretend to explain meaning: "highlighting," "underscoring," "reflecting," "showcasing." Replace with the concrete consequence or cut. - **Importance puffery.** "Stands as a testament," "marks a pivotal moment," "plays a vital role," "underscores its significance." State the fact and let the reader judge whether it matters. - **Weasel attribution.** "Experts agree," "studies show," "widely regarded as," "many argue." Name the source or cut the claim. No source? Ask the user — never invent one. - **Synonym cycling.** Rotating "the agent / the assistant / the tool" for the same referent. If the clear word is right, repeat it. - **Fake-profound kickers.** A final "deep" line that turns the point into a cute metaphor or mic-drop. Delete it — do not rewrite it into a better metaphor — and end on the clearest concrete sentence already in the draft. ### 6. Fidelity check The draft must contain no claim the user didn't make or wouldn't endorse. Agents pad thin ideas by inventing supporting assertions, statistics, and examples. Flag anything you introduced: > Added: the comparison to X, the figure of 40%, the anecdote about Y. Confirm or cut. Invented numbers and fake anecdotes are worse than slop — they're wrong. ### 7. Self-check before the exit gate Before handing the draft to your prose-quality gate (if you have one, e.g. an `npm run slop-check ` script), answer each with pass/fail; fix and re-check on any fail. (Self-check pattern from petergyang/no-ai-slop's eval.md, MIT.) 1. Does every paragraph have a ten-words-or-fewer takeaway that isn't "context" or "recap"? 2. Are all fifteen slop shapes in §5 absent (or flagged deliberately)? 3. Is every claim, number, and example the user's own — or explicitly flagged as added? 4. Does the piece end on its last concrete point, not a summary or kicker? 5. Would the user recognize the draft as their own voice? ### 8. Report End with a short cut log so the user can overrule you: ``` Claim: Drafted: 1,340 → Final: 780 words (42% cut) Cut: opening scene-setter, section 3 (duplicated section 1), closing summary, 4 hedges Added by me (confirm): the Postgres example in §2 ``` ## What this skill does not do Usefulness is not the only test. A piece can pass this filter and still be dishonest, unattributed, or unkind. Accuracy, sourcing, and credit are separate gates — this one only governs whether text earns its place on the page. ## Source & license This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code. - **Author:** [pktikkani](https://github.com/pktikkani) - **Source:** [pktikkani/agent-skills](https://github.com/pktikkani/agent-skills) - **License:** MIT Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above. ## Pricing - **Free** — Free ## Security capabilities Automated source analysis of v0.1.0 — what this tool can access: - **Network access:** no - **Filesystem access:** no - **Shell / process execution:** no - **Environment & secrets:** no - **Dynamic code execution:** no *"Yes" means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it is unsafe.* ## Versions - **0.1.0** — security scan: passed — Imported from the upstream source. ## Links - Listing page: https://agentstack.voostack.com/l/skill-pktikkani-agent-skills-useful-or-cut - Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/pktikkani - Browse the marketplace: https://agentstack.voostack.com/browse --- Listed on AgentStack — the marketplace for AI agent skills and MCP servers. Every listing is security-reviewed. Creators keep 70%.