Add deterministic Slop Cop report cards

.github/workflows/security.yml

@@ -37,6 +37,7 @@ jobs:
         run: |
           python3 scripts/validate_repo.py
           python3 scripts/validate_cases.py
+          python3 scripts/test_ticket_score.py
 
       - name: Run static security checks
         shell: bash

Makefile

@@ -4,6 +4,7 @@ check: validate security benchmark
 
 validate:
 	python3 scripts/validate_repo.py
+	python3 scripts/test_ticket_score.py
 
 security:
 	bash scripts/security_scan.sh .

README.md

@@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ The skill loads only the references needed for the material under review.
 ### Audit without rewriting
 
 ```text
-$slop-cop Audit this draft. List the evidence, severity, and recommended fixes without rewriting it.
+$slop-cop Audit this draft without rewriting it.
 ```
 
 ### Grade a post
@@ -115,27 +115,65 @@ $slop-cop Review this landing page for generic generated-UI defaults, unsupporte
 $slop-cop Review this diff for happy-path-only logic, swallowed failures, unsafe boundaries, unnecessary abstractions, and missing tests.
 ```
 
-Compatible agents may select Slop Cop when a request matches its description. Explicit invocation is the most reliable way to request a particular review.
+### Slop Cop this
 
-## Output
+```text
+$slop-cop This.
+```
 
-Slop Cop supports three modes:
+Every request returns a Slop Cop report-card ticket: a deterministic 0–100
+score, letter grade, evidence-backed charge, fixed slogan, and recommended next
+step. It targets the work, not the person. It does not message anyone unless
+you explicitly ask it to send the ticket through a connected service.
 
-- **Audit:** findings, quoted evidence, severity, and fixes
-- **Grade:** a scored review using calibration anchors
-- **Rewrite:** the smallest useful revision, followed by a self-audit
+Compatible agents may select Slop Cop when a request matches its description. Explicit invocation is the most reliable way to request a particular review.
 
-For prose, it scores five dimensions from 1–10:
+## Output
 
-| Dimension | Review question |
-|---|---|
-| Directness | Does it state the point without empty setup or stacked hedging? |
-| Specificity | Are material claims concrete and supportable? |
-| Rhythm | Are sentence and paragraph shapes varied for a reason? |
-| Voice | Does it preserve a consistent, identifiable voice? |
-| Density | Is every remaining sentence doing useful work? |
+Slop Cop supports four modes, but the report-card ticket is always included:
 
-A score below 35 normally needs revision. The score is an editorial aid, not an authorship detector or a substitute for judgment.
+- **Audit:** emphasize findings, quoted evidence, severity, and fixes
+- **Grade:** emphasize the score and penalty arithmetic
+- **Rewrite:** the smallest useful revision, followed by a self-audit
+- **Ticket:** emphasize the funny, evidence-backed citation
+
+Scoring starts at 100 and uses fixed deductions:
+
+| Violation | Deduction |
+|---|---:|
+| Blocker | −30 |
+| Major | −15 |
+| Minor | −5 |
+| Note | −1 |
+
+Each violation is counted once at its highest severity. The report always shows
+the arithmetic, so identical findings produce the same score.
+
+| Grade | Score | Grade | Score |
+|---|---:|---|---:|
+| A+ | 97–100 | C | 73–76 |
+| A | 93–96 | C- | 70–72 |
+| A- | 90–92 | D+ | 67–69 |
+| B+ | 87–89 | D | 63–66 |
+| B | 83–86 | D- | 60–62 |
+| B- | 80–82 | F | 0–59 |
+| C+ | 77–79 |  |  |
+
+The scale runs from **0 = total slop** to **100 = damn, you're not a
+robot?** Scores below C+ draw from 30 fixed bad-grade slogans; C+ and above
+draw from 30 fixed good-grade slogans. Selection is rules-based, not random,
+and Slop Cop never invents a new slogan. The joke is not an authorship claim:
+the score measures observable quality problems only.
+
+Recommended next steps are fixed by score band:
+
+- 97–100: ship
+- 90–96: tweak optional notes
+- 80–89: tweak minor violations
+- 77–79: revise the highest-impact violation
+- 70–76: revise material violations
+- 60–69: rewrite affected sections
+- 0–59: start over from the strongest factual core
 
 <!-- slop-cop-brand:outcomes:start -->
 <p align="center">
@@ -176,15 +214,19 @@ slop-cop/
         │   └── openai.yaml
         ├── assets/
         │   └── brand/
-        └── references/
+        ├── references/
             ├── calibration-anchors.md
             ├── code.md
             ├── design.md
             ├── prose-examples.md
             ├── prose-phrases.md
             ├── prose-structures.md
             ├── report-template.md
-            └── research-sources.md
+            ├── research-sources.md
+            ├── ticket-slogans.json
+            └── tickets.md
+        └── scripts/
+            └── score_ticket.py
 ```
 
 ## Development

benchmark/cases.yml

@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ cases:
       opportunity is not to move faster. It is to build a robust foundation
       that actually scales. That is the point.
     expected_verdict: REVISE
-    expected_score_range: [10, 24]
+    expected_score_range: [40, 76]
     must_find:
       - vague quantifier
       - repeated antithesis
@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ cases:
       plain English instead of suspicious shell commands, which is why I kept
       the manual review step.
     expected_verdict: PASS
-    expected_score_range: [40, 49]
+    expected_score_range: [90, 100]
     must_preserve:
       - all numbers
       - Sunday
@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ cases:
       to private enterprise code. A larger replication would narrow that
       uncertainty.
     expected_verdict: PASS
-    expected_score_range: [38, 48]
+    expected_score_range: [90, 100]
     must_not_find:
       - empty hedging
     must_preserve:
@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ cases:
       are doing security wrong.” I removed it because it made an unsupported
       claim before presenting the scan results.
     expected_verdict: PASS
-    expected_score_range: [38, 48]
+    expected_score_range: [90, 100]
     must_preserve:
       - quoted text
 
@@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ cases:
       streamlines the busywork, and turns evolving priorities into actionable
       next steps. I'm curious how far this pivotal shift can go.
     expected_verdict: REVISE
-    expected_score_range: [12, 26]
+    expected_score_range: [40, 76]
     must_find:
       - marketing verbs
       - empty tic words
@@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ cases:
       team struck a delicate balance, applying surgical precision to every
       detail so the whole thing feels effortless.
     expected_verdict: REVISE
-    expected_score_range: [12, 26]
+    expected_score_range: [40, 76]
     must_find:
       - inflated symbolism
       - false-precision adjective

scripts/test_ticket_score.py

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env python3
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+import importlib.util
+from pathlib import Path
+import sys
+
+
+ROOT = Path(__file__).resolve().parents[1]
+sys.dont_write_bytecode = True
+MODULE_PATH = ROOT / "skills" / "slop-cop" / "scripts" / "score_ticket.py"
+SPEC = importlib.util.spec_from_file_location("score_ticket", MODULE_PATH)
+assert SPEC and SPEC.loader
+score_ticket = importlib.util.module_from_spec(SPEC)
+SPEC.loader.exec_module(score_ticket)
+
+assert score_ticket.score(0, 0, 0, 0) == 100
+assert score_ticket.score(4, 0, 0, 0) == 0
+assert score_ticket.score(0, 1, 2, 0) == 75
+
+expected_boundaries = {
+    100: "A+", 97: "A+", 96: "A", 93: "A", 92: "A-", 90: "A-",
+    89: "B+", 87: "B+", 86: "B", 83: "B", 82: "B-", 80: "B-",
+    79: "C+", 77: "C+", 76: "C", 73: "C", 72: "C-", 70: "C-",
+    69: "D+", 67: "D+", 66: "D", 63: "D", 62: "D-", 60: "D-",
+    59: "F", 0: "F",
+}
+for value, expected in expected_boundaries.items():
+    assert score_ticket.letter_grade(value) == expected
+
+slogans = score_ticket.load_slogans()
+assert len(slogans["bad"]) == 30
+assert len(slogans["good"]) == 30
+assert len(set(slogans["bad"])) == 30
+assert len(set(slogans["good"])) == 30
+assert score_ticket.slogan(75, 0, 1, 2, 0) == score_ticket.slogan(75, 0, 1, 2, 0)
+assert score_ticket.slogan(76, 0, 0, 0, 24) in slogans["bad"]
+assert score_ticket.slogan(77, 0, 1, 1, 3) in slogans["good"]
+
+print("Deterministic ticket scoring, grades, and 60 fixed slogans validated.")

skills/slop-cop/SKILL.md

@@ -1,17 +1,17 @@
 ---
 name: slop-cop
 description: >-
-  Audit, grade, and rewrite generic AI-slop patterns in prose, social posts,
-  UI/design, and code. Use when asked to de-slop writing, humanize AI copy,
-  grade a draft, review a landing page or generated interface, remove vague
-  claims and repetitive rhetoric, or inspect AI-written code for generic
-  abstractions and happy-path-only logic. Do not use to determine whether AI
+  Audit, grade, rewrite, and issue funny evidence-backed tickets for generic
+  AI-slop patterns in prose, social posts, UI/design, and code. Use when asked
+  to de-slop writing, humanize AI copy, grade a draft, review a landing page or
+  generated interface, remove vague claims and repetitive rhetoric, inspect
+  AI-written code for generic abstractions and happy-path-only logic, or ticket
+  someone for a specific quality offense. Do not use to determine whether AI
   authored something.
 license: MIT
-compatibility: Works in Agent Skills-compatible environments that support Markdown references.
 metadata:
   author: howshannon
-  version: "0.3.0"
+  version: "0.4.0"
 ---
 
 # Slop Cop
@@ -41,9 +41,15 @@ proof of AI authorship.
 ## Choose a mode
 
 - **Audit:** list findings, evidence, severity, and fixes without rewriting.
-- **Grade:** score the requested beat and explain the score.
+- **Grade:** emphasize the score and its arithmetic.
 - **Rewrite:** make the smallest changes that remove the problems; then audit
   the rewrite before returning it.
+- **Ticket:** emphasize one funny, shareable citation.
+
+Every mode, including a bare “slop cop this,” ends with the same scored
+report-card ticket. Read [report-card tickets](references/tickets.md) and use
+`scripts/score_ticket.py`; never improvise the score, grade, slogan, or next
+step.
 
 Route only to the references needed:
 
@@ -55,6 +61,7 @@ Route only to the references needed:
 - Scoring → [calibration anchors](references/calibration-anchors.md) and
   [report template](references/report-template.md).
 - Evidence claims → [research sources](references/research-sources.md).
+- Funny citations → [ticket mode](references/tickets.md).
 
 ## The two laws
 
@@ -136,29 +143,26 @@ before deciding severity.
    facts rather than inventing them.
 6. Re-run the tally and verify facts, quotations, links, numbers, and tone.
 
-## Grading prose
-
-Score five dimensions from 1–10, total 50. A score below 35 normally needs
-revision.
+## Scoring every review
 
-| Dimension | Question |
-|---|---|
-| Directness | Does it state the point without empty setup or stacked hedging? |
-| Specificity | Are material claims concrete and supportable? |
-| Rhythm | Are sentence and paragraph shapes varied for a reason? |
-| Voice | Does it preserve a consistent, identifiable human voice? |
-| Density | Is every remaining sentence doing useful work? |
+Start at 100. Deduct 30 per blocker, 15 per major, 5 per minor, and 1 per note,
+then clamp at zero. Count each observable violation once at its highest
+applicable severity. Show the violation counts and full arithmetic so the same
+findings always produce the same score.
 
-Apply caps only when the tally supports them:
+Map the result to the fixed A+ through F bands in
+[report-card tickets](references/tickets.md). Scores under C+ use one of the 30
+fixed bad-grade slogans; C+ and above use one of the 30 fixed good-grade
+slogans. Select it with the documented formula—never generate a new one.
 
-- One device used 3+ times: Rhythm may not exceed 5.
-- One device used 5+ times, or two device classes used 3+ times: Rhythm and
-  Voice may not exceed 4.
-- Fabricated attribution, quote, statistic, or experience: overall result is a
-  blocker regardless of total.
+The displayed scale is `0 = total slop · 100 = damn, you're not a robot?`.
+This is humorous editorial shorthand only. The result measures observable
+quality problems and must never be presented as authorship detection.
 
-Report the tally, quoted evidence, biggest issue, confidence, score, and the
-single highest-leverage change. Use the report template.
+Always report the score, letter grade, charge, evidence, penalty arithmetic,
+fixed citation, recommended next step, and smallest useful fix. Use the
+[report template](references/report-template.md). A clean review still gets a
+100/A+ report card with “No citation-worthy violations found.”
 
 ## Design and code
 

skills/slop-cop/agents/openai.yaml

@@ -1,12 +1,12 @@
 interface:
   display_name: "Slop Cop"
-  short_description: "Audit and fix generic AI-slop patterns."
+  short_description: "Score, fix, and ticket generic slop."
   icon_small: "./assets/brand/slop-cop-emblem.png"
   icon_large: "./assets/brand/slop-cop-emblem.png"
-  brand_color: "#FF2E88"
+  brand_color: "#FFAE4D"
   default_prompt: >-
-    Run Slop Cop on this material. Return the verdict, score or severity,
-    evidence tally, biggest offense, highest-impact fix, and revised version.
+    Use $slop-cop to return a deterministic 0–100 report-card ticket, evidence,
+    and the recommended next step for this material.
 
 policy:
   allow_implicit_invocation: true