CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

ai-slop-gate/ai-slop-gate

Contribute to ai-slop-gate — an open-source CI/CD policy gate that detects AI-generated code slop, security issues, and compliance violations. Use when adding a new LLM provider (Gemini, Groq, Ollama) or static provider, writing analysis rules, extending the policy engine, working with reporters, fixing compliance sidecar logic, or writing tests. Activate when working with ai_slop_gate/ source tree, policy.yml, snapshot, or GitHub Actions workflows.

97

1.19x
Quality

97%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

100%

1.19x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

SecuritybySnyk

Advisory

Suggest reviewing before use

Overview
Quality
Evals
Security
Files

Evaluation results

100%

24%

Add Mistral LLM Provider to ai-slop-gate

New LLM provider structure and JSON contract

Criteria
Without context
With context

Correct file location

100%

100%

Extends LlmProvider

100%

100%

kind = 'llm'

100%

100%

analyze() implemented

100%

100%

analyze_pr() implemented

100%

100%

Prompt file location

100%

100%

Prompt enforces top-level 'issues' key

0%

100%

Prompt prohibits markdown/extra text

100%

100%

Prompt enforces snake_case signal

0%

100%

Prompt enforces severity enum

75%

100%

Registry registration shown

100%

100%

CLI option shown

75%

100%

100%

8%

Add a Dead Link Detector Static Provider and Review Cache Behaviour

Cache layer design and static provider conventions

Criteria
Without context
With context

Correct static file location

100%

100%

Extends BaseProvider

100%

100%

kind = 'static'

100%

100%

collect() implemented

100%

100%

ProviderObservation fields correct

100%

100%

Test positive case

100%

100%

Test negative case

100%

100%

Cache LLM-only rule

100%

100%

Cache key components

53%

100%

Engineer proposal rejected

100%

100%

No provider-specific logic in cache

100%

100%

Duplicate call prevention

75%

100%

100%

14%

Refactor ai-slop-gate to Separate Compliance Checking from Analysis

Architecture principles and compliance sidecar placement

Criteria
Without context
With context

Engine IO violation identified

100%

100%

CLI thinness violation identified

100%

100%

Compliance sidecar placement identified

100%

100%

Engine is pure in refactored example

100%

100%

Compliance runs after providers

100%

100%

Compliance runs before reporters

100%

100%

Compliance profiles mentioned

0%

100%

Compliance activation flags

28%

100%

Correct exit code for blocking

100%

100%

Compliance checks described

100%

100%

CLI only wires components

100%

100%

No compliance inside engine

100%

100%

Evaluated
Agent
Claude Code
Model
Claude Sonnet 4.6

Table of Contents