AISlop CLI
Ranked 9 of 14 linters by recommenders
Recommended as a linter that flags AI-generated code smells and works as a quality gate; the most common caveat is false positives, and critics say it overlaps existing linters.
Recommended as a linter that flags AI-generated code smells and works as a quality gate; the most common caveat is false positives, and critics say it overlaps existing linters.
15 people gave an opinion
- recommend it
- 9
- criticize it
- 6
- approval share
- 60%
Recommended in 1 of 13 months
- November 2025: not recommended
- December 2025: not recommended
- January 2026: not recommended
- February 2026: not recommended
- March 2026: not recommended
- April 2026: not recommended
- May 2026: recommended
- June 2026: not recommended
- July 2026: not recommended
- August 2026: not recommended
- September 2026: not recommended
- October 2026: not recommended
- November 2026: not recommended (month in progress)
Why it doesn’t carry the badge
- 9 people recommend itNeeds 10 or more, not met.
- 1.5 recommenders for every criticNeeds 2 to 1 or better, not met.
- Recommended in 1 of 13 monthsNeeds 4 or more, not met.
The same three rules apply to every product, and the badge can’t be bought. How the badge works
What people say about it
The reasons people give, with the number of comments that give each one. Open a reason to read what they said.
Why people recommend it
Each mark is one comment
Catches AI-specific code patterns
“projects of mine last modified before 2016 all contain critical AI slop. So very accurate.”
Comment from 29 May 2026 in “Show HN: AISlop, a CLI for catching AI generated code smells” “This is so good and comprehensive. I will be adding this to the list of patterns to check.”
Comment from 29 May 2026 in “Show HN: AISlop, a CLI for catching AI generated code smells” “A linter with rules for AI-specific weirdness is absolutely a great idea”
Comment from 29 May 2026 in “Show HN: AISlop, a CLI for catching AI generated code smells” Quality gate for AI-generated code
“You can see the tool as a quality gate you put in place to ensure that any AI generated code meets a standard.”
Comment from 29 May 2026 in “Show HN: AISlop, a CLI for catching AI generated code smells” “A linter with rules for AI-specific weirdness is absolutely a great idea”
Comment from 29 May 2026 in “Show HN: AISlop, a CLI for catching AI generated code smells”
What people warn about
Each mark is one comment
Reports many false positives
“I tried it but see a lot of false positives.”
Comment from 29 May 2026 in “Show HN: AISlop, a CLI for catching AI generated code smells” “there were a lot of false positives”
Comment from 29 May 2026 in “Show HN: AISlop, a CLI for catching AI generated code smells” Misreports some errors and scores
“it reports as `Error return value is being ignored` even though it's clearly not an error being ignored”
Comment from 29 May 2026 in “Show HN: AISlop, a CLI for catching AI generated code smells” “Errors: 0 ; Warnings: 6 --> "56 / 100 Failing" ???”
Comment from 29 May 2026 in “Show HN: AISlop, a CLI for catching AI generated code smells” Name 'slop' hurts credibility
“it really is a bit weird to incorporate a tool called slop into a corporate CICD flow”
Comment from 29 May 2026 in “Show HN: AISlop, a CLI for catching AI generated code smells” “credibility is lost by using "slop" words imo”
Comment from 29 May 2026 in “Show HN: AISlop, a CLI for catching AI generated code smells”
Other linters people recommend
The four most recommended other linters, with the same counts for each, so you can compare like for like. The tick on each bar marks the 2 to 1 line the badge needs.
| Product | Recommend | Criticize | Approval | Months | Owned | Badge |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ruff | 115 | 16 | 88% | 11 | — | Approved |
| Clippy (Rust linter) | 58 | 31 | 65% | 12 | — | — |
| ESLint | 32 | 22 | 59% | 11 | — | — |
| Biome | 23 | 5 | 82% | 10 | — | Approved |
| AISlop CLIThis page | 9 | 6 | 60% | 1 | — | — |
What people said
15 of the 16 comments that mention it, newest first. Each links to the original comment.
“it reports as `Error return value is being ignored` even though it's clearly not an error being ignored”
“Errors: 0 ; Warnings: 6 --> "56 / 100 Failing" ???”
“This is so good and comprehensive. I will be adding this to the list of patterns to check.”
“projects of mine last modified before 2016 all contain critical AI slop. So very accurate.”
“You can see the tool as a quality gate you put in place to ensure that any AI generated code meets a standard.”
“there were a lot of false positives”
“I tried it but see a lot of false positives.”
“someone is caring about using less token”
“There's a lot of overlap with tools like Oxlint / ESLint, I'm not sure that's too valuable”
“the dead code checks can be very helpful”
“it really is a bit weird to incorporate a tool called slop into a corporate CICD flow”
“credibility is lost by using "slop" words imo”
“Having more linters is a good thing IMO”
“A linter with rules for AI-specific weirdness is absolutely a great idea”
“detected some good stuff, was able to pass the issues to my agent so they can be validated and fixed.”
Counts come from 1,795,640 Hacker News comments, November 2025 to November 2026. How we count. Report a mistake.