Am I crazy or does the skill itself look like slop, complete with disclaimers back to the user embedded into the skill file itself?

"A warning about the original post. It came with an overview graphic of STE. A later fact check found errors in that graphic. For example, "approximately" is an approved word, and the dictionary has no entry for "in order to". This skill follows the rules of Issue 9, not the graphic."

▲

grey-area 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yes it absolutely is slop, full of AI tells. Why do we need all this ridiculous ceremony for a text file of instructions anyway?

If I want to control how it writes I just put a style_guide.md in the context.

▲

_vertigo 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Honest question: why does it matter if the skill is slop? It's designed for use by an LLM, I'm not planning on reading it.

	▲	z2 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I'm totally fine with that, but I think there are still quality standards that if a bit higher, would let the skill at least be much smaller and thus less token-consuming. One place where I draw the line is when somebody, with minimal effort using an LLM, could have improved the quality of the LLM generated output. Also, I treat skills like programs and skim all external skills to make sure that they're not doing things they shouldn't be doing.
	▲	2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]