¬ just serendipity 🍀 (not just serendipity)

Previously.

Problem statement: review an AI-written slop pull request from a teammate.

We’ll use a clanker to review slop PRs.

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 survive hostile input.

My default sequence for a long, plausible PR is now:

/meat <PR-URL>
/dual-review <PR-URL> --post

One tool removes narrative noise. The other removes findings without evidence.