Reviewing slop pull requests

♠ Problem statement: review an AI-written slop pull request from a teammate. First, I invoke the /meat skill, turning the diff into a reading guide, inspired by David Crawshaw: /meat <PR-URL> It does not look for defects. It captures the diff once, follows control and data flow, treats tests as specifications, and returns this shape: One sentence with intent and observable result. ## Read in this order - path:line — why this contract matters ## Flow 1. input 2. transformation 3. effect ## Contracts ## Tests as specs ## Omitted That gives me the author’s system model (the “meat” of their PR) without the PR body’s narrative. Second, /dual-review1 tries to break that model: /dual-review <PR-URL> [--post] It runs two review passes with different lenses / perspectives, then validates every candidate against source and focused probes. Reviewer agreement changes investigation priority. To recap: /meat says what the change means and where to read it. /dual-review checks whether contracts…