Slop Eval

io.github.RudrenduPaul由 GitHub 账号 RudrenduPaul 发布v0.1.4更新于 Oct 24, 2026

Wraps the slop-eval CLI as a single generic MCP tool for genericness scoring of AI UI output.

已验证STDIO仅桌面开发者工具AI 与机器学习

概览

AI 生成的概览

本地 MCP 服务器,封装 slop-eval 命令行工具,让助手借助 Anthropic 大模型评审为 AI 生成的界面截图或网址打「同质化」分数。

可以做什么
通过一个通用工具调用 slop-eval 命令行,传入与命令行相同的参数,返回解析后的 JSON 输出,出错时返回结构化错误对象而不抛异常。对截图图片或网址按版本化评分标准打分,涵盖布局新颖度、视觉识别独特性和组件模式新颖度。返回综合分数、带证据的逐条发现和汇总,并支持按阈值返回退出码以便 CI 把关。对未变化的输入复用缓存结果,重复运行得到相同分数。
适用场景
适合在评审 AI 生成的界面时,快速判断布局或组件组合是否显得千篇一律;也适合把这类检查与确定性检查工具一起接入 CI 或智能体流程。
运行要求
以 slop-eval-mcp 命令通过 stdio 在本地运行,需从 PyPI 包 slop-eval-cli 安装并带上 mcp 附加依赖;需要 Python 3.9 及以上和 mcp 2.0.0 及以上。需要设置 ANTHROPIC_API_KEY 环境变量(自备密钥),评分时需访问 Anthropic API 的网络。
安装前请注意
必须提供 ANTHROPIC_API_KEY,每次评分都会调用 Anthropic 付费 API,产生费用。截图内容或抓取的网页 HTML 与文本会发送到 Anthropic 的 API。网址模式不渲染页面,只依据原始标记和文案判断。分数是大模型的启发式判断,并非认证。

安装

在 SourceWeft 中

  1. 打开 控制台中的 Slop Eval,将其添加到工作区。
  2. 为需要使用其工具的对话启用该服务。

Desktop only,通过 STDIO。 STDIO 服务会启动本地进程,因此需要 SourceWeft 桌面宿主。

其他 MCP 客户端

参照 仓库 中的启动说明。

README

slop-eval

[CI] [npm version] [PyPI version] [License: Apache 2.0] [Node]

Quickstart • CLI reference • Library API • MCP Server • Comparison • FAQ

Score AI-generated UI for genericness with an LLM judge, so a CI check catches the same "this looks like every other AI-built app" problem a human reviewer would flag on sight.

[Terminal recording: cloning slop-eval, installing dependencies, building the CLI, running --help, then running a first score without ANTHROPIC_API_KEY set, showing the real fail-fast error message that tells you how to set the key]

bash
npx slop-eval-cli score --screenshot ./preview.png --json

No install step: npx fetches and runs the published npm package directly. Prefer Python? pip install slop-eval-cli gets you the same CLI as a genuine, independent port of the scoring logic.

Two distributions: npm and Python, both live

slop-eval-cli is live on both npm and PyPI (package slop_eval). The Python port is a genuine, independent implementation, built and tested (60/60 tests, verified in this pass) against the same rubric and Anthropic judge prompt as the TypeScript original. See python/README.md for Python-specific usage.

Why this exists, and what it isn't

Nutlope's Hallmark, a popular AI design skill with 21,000+ stars, has an open issue where a user says flatly: "all of it looks like slop." The maintainer closed it NOT_PLANNED. Separately, a contributor opened a PR against Hallmark titled "Add eval-driven quality harness for Hallmark outputs" that has sat open and unmerged for about two months as of this writing. Both are real and dated as of this writing. Neither proves the demand is large, only that the gap is real and currently unaddressed.

slop-eval is not the first tool in this space, and it doesn't try to be. Two real, free tools already sit nearby:

  • Impeccable (pbakaus/impeccable, 54,000+ stars, Apache 2.0) ships a CLI that flags 59 specific visual tells of AI-generated UI (gradient palettes, glassmorphism, side-stripe borders, WCAG contrast violations), all enabled by default with no model call; a separate impeccable critique command adds further, opt-in LLM-based judgments on top. Core detection stays fast because it doesn't need a model for any of its default checks. It has grown well beyond a slop detector into a full design-language skill for Claude Code, Cursor, and Codex, with 23 commands total.
  • aislop (MIT, 500+ stars) does the deterministic, rule-based equivalent for AI-generated code (not UI): 50+ regex/AST rules across 8 languages, no LLM in the runtime path, positioned exactly as a CI quality gate.

Neither does holistic, judgment-based UI scoring: "does this layout feel novel," "does this component choice feel considered," the kind of read a fixed rule can't easily encode. That's the gap slop-eval fills, built to compose with tools like Impeccable's rather than replace them.

Features

Verified directly against the code in this repo:

  • Three rubric categories, each with mandatory cited evidence. src/rubric/v1.json scores layout novelty, visual-identity distinctiveness, and component-pattern novelty, 0-10 each. A finding with no specific citation is treated as a bug, not a valid score (see src/sources/RuleSource.ts).
  • LLM judge via forced tool-call, returning structured JSON. LLMJudgeSource calls the Anthropic API with tool_choice locked to a submit_slop_scores schema: the response comes back as reliably structured JSON instead of a chat reply that has to be regexed apart.
  • --json mode for CI and agents. Every run can emit a parseable { target, rubric, compositeScore, findings[], summary, disclaimer } object on stdout, on both success and error paths, so a script or agent never has to branch on shape to find an error string.
  • Real exit-code contract. 0 success (no threshold, or score at/above --fail-below), 1 success but below threshold, 2 usage error or unrecoverable failure. Verified directly against the built CLI and the real npm/PyPI packages this session; see CLI reference.
  • Content-hash caching. src/cache/judge-cache.ts hashes the input bytes and skips the API call entirely on a repeat run against unchanged input. That's a correctness guarantee as much as a cost saver: an unchanged PR can't flap a CI gate from LLM run-to-run variance.
  • Composable RuleSource plugin interface. src/sources/RuleSource.ts is the boundary every scoring source implements. Today that's one real source (LLMJudgeSource) and one documented stub (ScreenshotDiffSource, honestly reported as not_scored until a real labeled corpus exists), so a future rule catalog or a second LLM provider slots in without touching the composite scorer.
  • Screenshot input (real visual read) or --url fallback. --screenshot sends the actual rendered image to the judge. --url is a documented v0.1 limitation: no bundled headless browser, so it fetches raw HTML/text and the judge reasons over markup and copy instead of layout.
  • GitHub Action that leads with the specific flag, then the score. action/action.yml posts a PR comment headed by the single most specific flagged finding, followed by the composite score, giving a reviewer the reasoning behind the number.
  • Versioned, public rubric. Every score names the rubric version (v1 today) that produced it. Rubric changes ship as a new file, never a silent edit to an existing one.
  • A real, agent-native library API alongside the CLI. Both distributions export a programmatic entry point (score_composite and friends in Python, runScore/scoreComposite in TypeScript) so an agent framework can call slop-eval in-process instead of shelling out. See Library API.

Quickstart

Requires Node.js 18+ (npm) or Python 3.9+ (PyPI), and an ANTHROPIC_API_KEY (BYO key; get one at console.anthropic.com).

The fastest path, no local clone or build needed, is the one-liner at the top of this README:

bash
npx slop-eval-cli score --screenshot ./preview.png --json

Verified this session against the real published npm package, with a real PNG at ./preview.png and no ANTHROPIC_API_KEY set:

bash
$ npx --yes slop-eval-cli@latest score --screenshot ./preview.png --json{  "error": "ANTHROPIC_API_KEY environment variable is not set.\nslop-eval calls the Anthropic API to run the LLM judge, and is BYO-key (bring your own key) -- there is no default or shared key baked into this tool. Set your key and try again:\n\n  export ANTHROPIC_API_KEY=\"sk-ant-...\"\n\nGet a key at https://console.anthropic.com/"}# exit code 2

To build from source instead:

bash
git clone https://github.com/RudrenduPaul/slop-eval.gitcd slop-evalnpm installnpm run build
export ANTHROPIC_API_KEY="sk-ant-..."./dist/cli.js score --screenshot ./test/fixtures/sample.png

For CI or agent consumption, add --json. --json always emits a valid JSON object on stdout, on both the success and error paths, and the --url/--screenshot mutual-exclusivity check is a good example of a real usage-error path you can rely on being parseable:

[Terminal recording: running score with --json to show the structured JSON error object on stdout, then passing both --url and --screenshot together to show the mutually-exclusive usage error, also returned as valid JSON]

bash
./dist/cli.js score --screenshot ./test/fixtures/sample.png --json
json
{  "target": "./test/fixtures/sample.png",  "rubric": "v1",  "compositeScore": 62,  "findings": [    {      "ruleId": "llm-judge.layout-novelty",      "category": "Layout novelty",      "score": 4,      "evidence": "Matches a common hero + 3-card grid + footer CTA pattern.",      "status": "flag"    }  ],  "summary": { "pass": 1, "flagged": 1, "notScored": 1 },  "disclaimer": "This score is a heuristic quality signal from an LLM judge, not a certification..."}

CLI reference

Captured directly from ./dist/cli.js score --help on the built CLI this session, word for word:

Usage: slop-eval score [options]
Score a URL or screenshot for AI-UI genericness against a versioned rubric.
Note on --url mode (v0.1 limitation): this tool does not bundle a headlessbrowser. If --url is given, the raw HTML/text response is fetched and given tothe judge as a fallback input, instead of a rendered screenshot -- the judgecan reason about markup and copy, but not the actual visual layout. For thestronger, layout-aware signal, render the page yourself and pass --screenshot.
Options:  --url <url>          URL to score (fetched as raw HTML/text -- see                        limitation note above)  --screenshot <path>  path to a screenshot image to score (preferred over                        --url)  --rubric <name>       rubric version to use, reads src/rubric/<name>.json                        (default: "v1")  --json                output structured JSON instead of a human-readable                        report (default: false)  --fail-below <n>      exit code 1 if the composite score is below this                        threshold (0-100); no threshold by default  -h, --help             display help for command

Exit codes: 0 success (no threshold, or score at/above --fail-below), 1 success but below threshold, 2 usage error or unrecoverable failure (missing API key, unreadable file, malformed rubric, mutually exclusive --url/--screenshot).

--url and --screenshot are mutually exclusive; passing both or neither is a usage error (exit 2) in either output mode. Both verified directly against the built CLI this session.

[Terminal recording walking the real usage-error paths: missing --url/--screenshot, both flags passed together, an unreadable file path, and a missing ANTHROPIC_API_KEY, each exiting 2 with a clear message]

[!NOTE] --url is a v0.1 limitation, by design: no bundled headless browser. It fetches raw HTML/text and hands it to the judge as a text fallback, reasoning over markup and copy rather than the rendered layout. --screenshot is the stronger signal; render the page yourself (Playwright, Puppeteer, or your CI's existing preview-screenshot step) and pass the image.

The Python CLI (slop-eval console script, installed via pip install slop-eval-cli) exposes the identical flag set and exit-code contract, confirmed against its own --help output this session.

Library API

Both distributions export a real, documented programmatic entry point in addition to the CLI. This is the interface an agent framework or CI script calls in-process instead of shelling out.

Python (slop_eval/__init__.py):

python
from slop_eval import score_composite, ScoreInput, LLMJudgeSource, ScreenshotDiffSource
sources = [LLMJudgeSource("v1"), ScreenshotDiffSource()]result = score_composite(sources, ScoreInput(screenshot_path="./preview.png"))print(result.composite_score, result.findings)

score_composite(sources: List[RuleSource], score_input: ScoreInput) -> CompositeResult runs every RuleSource in list order, flattens their findings, and returns a CompositeResult with composite_score: float (0-100) and findings: List[RuleFinding]. Also exported: RuleFinding, RuleFindingStatus, RuleSource, Rubric, RubricCategory, load_rubric, build_json_report, render_human_report, print_report, print_error, MissingApiKeyError, RubricLoadError.

TypeScript (src/cli.ts, exported from the package's main/types entry): runScore(options: ScoreOptions, buildSources?) => Promise<number> and buildProgram(): Command are the two exported entry points, along with the ScoreOptions interface. scoreComposite (from src/scorer/composite.ts) is the same composite-scoring function the CLI calls internally. These exist primarily so the test suite can drive the CLI in-process; the Python package's __init__.py is the more deliberately documented "agent-native" library surface of the two.

MCP Server

slop-eval ships a Model Context Protocol server, so an MCP-compatible agent (Claude Desktop, Claude Code, Cursor, an orchestrator) can call slop-eval directly as a tool instead of shelling out to the CLI and parsing stdout itself.

bash
pip install "slop-eval-cli[mcp]"

Claude Desktop config:

json
{  "mcpServers": {    "slop-eval": {      "command": "slop-eval-mcp",      "env": { "ANTHROPIC_API_KEY": "sk-ant-..." }    }  }}

The server exposes one tool, run(args: list[str]) -> dict, a generic wrapper around the CLI: pass it the same argv you'd pass on the command line (minus the leading slop-eval), and it returns the CLI's parsed JSON output, or a structured {"error": ...} dict on a non-zero exit, a timeout, or a subprocess failure -- the tool call itself never raises. Example:

python
run(["score", "--screenshot", "./preview.png", "--json"])# -> {"result": {"target": "./preview.png", "rubric": "v1", "compositeScore": 62.0, "findings": [...], ...}}

Start it directly with slop-eval-mcp (stdio transport). Requires Python 3.9+ for the base package; the mcp extra itself needs mcp>=2.0.0.

GitHub Action

yaml
- uses: RudrenduPaul/slop-eval/action@main  with:    url: ${{ steps.deploy.outputs.preview_url }}    fail-below: 50  env:    ANTHROPIC_API_KEY: ${{ secrets.ANTHROPIC_API_KEY }}

Posts a PR comment leading with the most specific flagged finding, then the composite score. Requires permissions: pull-requests: write in the calling workflow. Full input/output reference in action/README.md.

Honest comparison

slop-evalImpeccableaislop
TargetAI-generated UIAI-generated UIAI-generated code
Detection methodLLM judge (holistic)Deterministic rules, 59 checks by default; separate critique command adds further, opt-in LLM judgmentsDeterministic rules (50+ checks)
Requires an API keyYes (BYO Anthropic key)No, for the 59 default deterministic checksNo
SpeedSlower by design, a real model call is in the critical pathNear-instant for the deterministic checksSub-second, no network call
Composable rule sourcesYes, RuleSource plugin interfaceNo (fixed rule set)No (fixed rule set)
GitHub starsNew (this repo)54,000+500+
LicenseApache 2.0Apache 2.0MIT
CI-gate modelGitHub Action, --fail-below thresholdNot primarily positioned as a CI productYes, CI quality gate

Want fast, deterministic, zero-cost checks for known AI-UI tells? Impeccable's tool is the better fit today, and by star count and scope it's the more established project by far. For a holistic judgment call on layout and component novelty that a fixed rule set can't easily encode, that's what slop-eval adds. Nothing stops you from running both in the same CI job.

On speed: slop-eval is genuinely slower than Impeccable's core checks and aislop, because an LLM call sits in the critical path. Real, measured CLI-overhead numbers from a fresh clone and build, taken this session (--help and error paths, no scoring call):

CommandReal measured time
slop-eval score --help~0.05s
slop-eval score --screenshot <x> (no API key, fails fast, local file read only)~0.05s
slop-eval score --url <x> (no API key, fails fast)0.18s-0.91s, varies with network latency since this path fetches the URL before the key check runs

The actual scored-run latency (a real LLM-judge call, fresh vs. cached) requires a live ANTHROPIC_API_KEY this environment doesn't have, so these two numbers are targets pending a real measured run: under 10 seconds fresh, under 1 second on a cache hit for identical input. The cache-hit number is guaranteed by the content-hash cache logic in src/cache/judge-cache.ts; the fresh-run number is an estimate. We would rather label a target as a target than assert a number we can't reproduce.

What a score means (and doesn't)

A slop-eval score is a heuristic quality signal from one LLM's read of your UI against a stated rubric. It is not a certification that something is or isn't AI-generated, and a clean score doesn't mean the UI is good by every measure, only that this rubric, at this version, didn't flag it.

The rubric is public and versioned

Every score is graded against src/rubric/v1.json, a real, versioned file you can open and read directly. Read it, propose changes, or pin a specific version with --rubric. A rubric version is never edited in place; a change ships as a new file so a historical score always records which rubric produced it.

Roadmap

  • v0.1 (this release): LLM-judge scoring, CLI, GitHub Action, content-hash caching, --json mode, library API on both distributions.
  • v0.2: ScreenshotDiffSource becomes real once a genuine labeled corpus exists. An Impeccable-catalog adapter, pending a license check. Explicit rescore --rubric v2 command so a rubric bump is never silent.

Security

ANTHROPIC_API_KEY is read from the environment only, is never logged, and is never written to the content-hash cache -- see SECURITY.md for the full policy and the private disclosure process.

FAQ

What is slop-eval, and how is it different from a linter? It's a CLI, GitHub Action, and library that scores AI-generated UI for genericness ("slop") using an Anthropic LLM judge against a versioned rubric (src/rubric/v1.json), instead of a fixed set of deterministic pattern checks. It's built to catch the "this looks like every other AI-built app" read a human reviewer gives on sight, and to run alongside a deterministic linter in the same CI job or agent loop.

Do I need an API key? Yes. slop-eval is bring-your-own-key against the Anthropic API; there's no shared or hosted key. Nothing is sent anywhere except Anthropic's API.

How do I install it, and what platforms does it support? Two independent distributions, both verified installable and runnable this session. npm: npx slop-eval-cli score ... (no install) or npm install -g slop-eval-cli, requiring Node.js 18+ (see engines in package.json). PyPI: pip install slop-eval-cli, requiring Python 3.9-3.13 (see the classifiers in python/pyproject.toml). Neither package has a native binary or a platform-specific build step, so both install the same way on macOS, Linux, and Windows.

How does slop-eval compare to Impeccable specifically? See the Honest comparison table above for the full breakdown. In short: Impeccable's core is 59 deterministic checks, all enabled by default, that need no API key and run near-instantly, and the project itself has grown into a much larger design-language skill (54,000+ stars, 23 commands) beyond just slop detection; a separate critique command adds further LLM judgments on top of the deterministic set. slop-eval is a single LLM-judge call that needs a BYO Anthropic key and is slower by design, because a real model call sits in the critical path, in exchange for holistic layout/component judgment a fixed rule can't easily encode. They're built to run together in the same CI job.

Can I use a different model provider (OpenAI, Gemini)? Not in v0.1. LLMJudgeSource calls the Anthropic API directly; ANTHROPIC_MODEL only lets you pick a different Anthropic model. A pluggable provider is a natural fit for the RuleSource interface later, but it isn't built yet, so don't take "composable rule sources" to mean "multi-provider" today.

Does --url render the page like a browser would, and what if my score run fails? No, not in v0.1. --url fetches the raw HTML/text response and hands that to the judge as a fallback; render the page yourself and pass --screenshot for a real visual read. For failures generally: every error path, including a missing ANTHROPIC_API_KEY, exits with code 2 and prints a clear message (a JSON {"error": ...} object in --json mode), so a failed run should always tell you exactly what to fix.

Will re-running slop-eval on the same PR flap the CI check? No. Identical input (same screenshot bytes, or same URL plus fetched content) hits the content-hash cache in src/cache/judge-cache.ts and never re-calls the API, so the same input always returns the same cached result.

Is screenshot-diff-vs-corpus a real check today? No. It's a real RuleSource implementation in the code, but v0.1 ships it as an honest not_scored stub because no labeled comparison corpus exists yet. Hand-seeding an unvalidated corpus would be a less honest signal than reporting "not scored." Corpus-backed diffing is planned for v0.2.

Can I use slop-eval commercially, including in a closed-source product? Yes. Both distributions are Apache 2.0 (LICENSE, python/LICENSE), a permissive license that allows commercial use, modification, and closed-source redistribution, and includes an express patent grant. Calling the CLI, Action, or library from a closed-source project doesn't obligate you to open anything up; the license and copyright notice just need to ship with redistributed copies of slop-eval's own code.

Contributing

Issues and PRs welcome, see CONTRIBUTING.md (covers both the npm and Python packages, including per-package coverage requirements). New RuleSource implementations are the highest-leverage contribution: the plugin interface exists specifically so a new detection method doesn't require touching the composite scorer.

License

Apache 2.0. See LICENSE.

来源:README.md,提交 0fe9c7c

工具

0
SourceWeft 尚未在沙箱中启动过该软件包,因此其工具未知。

版本历史

1
  1. v0.1.4最新Sep 16, 2026

评分

已满足适用检查项的 50%

该评分衡量此收录条目的完整程度,依据注册中心条目、端点与公开来源计算得出。它不是对服务器本身的评价,也不表示服务器安全或当前可用:可连通性是带日期的检查结果,评分也不包含安装量或用户评价。

  • 近 30 天内可连通25 分

    请保持端点能够响应 MCP 握手;SourceWeft 每 30 天探测一次。

  • 已声明认证方式10 分

    请在注册中心条目中声明凭据请求头,或保持端点能够响应探测,以便判定其认证方式。

  • 已列出工具15 分

    请让服务器在无凭据时响应 tools/list,或发布可在沙箱中无凭据启动的软件包。

  • 描述必需15 分
  • 图标10 分
  • 文档15 分
  • 许可证10 分