ZenStory AI

Practical guide · 实用指南

Revise formulaic AI prose without changing your story

AI 写的小说太套路？用具体改稿减少“AI 味”

Source checked 2026-09-12 · 源码核对日期

Treat “AI-sounding” prose as an editorial complaint to make specific: vague emotions, repeated sentence patterns, unearned commentary or dialogue that explains too much. Oh Story’s story-deslop combines pattern checks with bounded revision. The useful goal is a passage that serves its scene and keeps the author’s facts and voice—not an authorship verdict or a detector score. The original before/after example below shows one possible edit, not a recorded skill run.

把“AI 味重”拆成能修改的问题：情绪太空泛、句式反复、议论拔高，或对白解释过多。Oh Story 的 story-deslop 把模式检查与有边界的修订结合起来。目标是让段落完成场景任务，同时保留作者设定和声音，不是判断作者身份或追求检测分数。下面的原创前后对照展示一种改法，不是一次技能运行记录。

Oh StorySource on GitHub

Before you start · 开始之前

Steps · 操作步骤

  1. Name the reading problem Instead of “make it human”, say what fails here: the paragraph names an emotion without showing its cause; several sentences repeat the same rhythm; or the narrator explains a choice that the action already makes clear. A metaphor, repeated phrase or polished sentence is not automatically a mistake. Keep it when it does useful work for this narrator, character or scene.
  2. Set the preservation boundary Separate the scene’s facts from wording you are willing to change. In the example, the last ferry, broken radio, ticket, hand movement and decision to stay are approved facts. The reason for staying must remain unrevealed. A new childhood memory or secret promise would be a story change, not merely a smoother sentence.
  3. Ask for diagnosis before choosing edits Use a /story-deslop request with the scope and “detection only” when you want to inspect findings first. The scanner identifies specified patterns and reports locations; a hit is not proof of bad prose or AI authorship. Ask why a flagged phrase is redundant in its actual scene, and leave purposeful expressions for contextual judgment. If the draft is truncated or shows blocking degeneration, return to the drafting/recovery workflow rather than trying to hide missing text with polish.
  4. Revise the smallest useful unit Prefer a word or sentence change over rebuilding an unaffected paragraph. Turn explanatory narration into clearer wording, an already-established action or dialogue where the scene supports it. The workflow limits deletion by severity and does not allow dropping whole paragraphs or losing plot functions. Shorter is not automatically better, and adding sensory decoration is not a substitute for a scene decision.
  5. Compare meaning as well as wording Read the original and revision side by side. Did a prop move, a character learn a secret, a promise disappear or the narrator suddenly gain access to another mind? Keep the revision only after resolving such changes. The example’s improvement is specific: dialogue carries the warning and the existing hand movement carries the hesitation, while a generic claim about destiny is removed.
  6. Stop polishing and use the right next workflow The documented pass stops after two rounds with no new change to the same paragraph, with at most three full-text rounds. Do not keep rewriting to chase a percentage. If a chapter needs changed events or a different information reveal, use the chapter-revision route and its tracking transaction instead. If you are importing an old book first, start with import and continuation.
  1. 先说清读起来哪里不对 不要只说“写得像人”，而要指出：这段只有情绪名称，没有造成情绪的原因；几句话节奏重复；或动作已经说明选择，旁白还在解释。比喻、重复、工整句子本身不是错误，只要它对当前叙述者、角色或场景有用，就可以保留。
  2. 划定不能改的故事边界 把场景事实与可改措辞分开。以下示例中，末班渡船、坏收音机、船票、手部动作和留下的决定都是已确认事实；留下的原因必须暂不揭露。新增童年回忆或秘密承诺，是改故事，不只是改顺一句话。
  3. 需要先看问题时，明确只检测 使用 /story-deslop 请求，并写明范围及“只检测”。扫描器定位指定模式；命中不等于文笔差，更不证明文本由 AI 创作。要求解释某处表达在当前场景里为什么冗余；有功能的写法留给语境判断，不机械删除。 如果草稿出现截断或阻断级退化，应回到写作、恢复流程处理，不用润色掩盖缺失内容。
  4. 修改能解决问题的最小单位 能换一个词、改一句，就不重建无关段落。场景允许时，可把解释腔换成更清楚的措辞、原本已有的动作或对白。流程按强度限制删除，不允许整段丢弃或删掉剧情功能。更短不自动等于更好，堆感官描写也不能代替场景中的选择。
  5. 前后对读，不只看句子顺不顺 检查改稿有没有移动道具、让角色提前知晓秘密、丢掉承诺，或突然读到了另一个人的内心。先解决这些变化，再接受修订。以下示例的修改理由很具体：用对白完成催促，用已有的手部动作承载犹豫，去掉没有增加信息的宏大议论。
  6. 到达目标就停，别反复磨成另一篇 文档规定同段两轮无新改动即停，全文最多三轮。不要为了一个百分比继续重写。如果需要改变事件或信息揭示，就进入章节大修及追踪事务，而不是借润色悄悄改剧情。旧书还没变成项目时，先看导入续写指南。

Example · 示例

ORIGINAL EDITORIAL EXAMPLE — a possible edit written for this guide, not a recorded story-deslop run.
Approved facts: the last ferry sounds its horn; the radio remains dismantled; Chen Yu pushes a ticket to Lin Zhou and urges him to leave; the paper touches his hand; he withdraws it to hold the loose casing; Chen waits for his answer; he chooses to stay and tells her to go first. Do not reveal his reason.

Before:
The last ferry sounded its horn. Looking at the dismantled radio, Lin Zhou felt a surge of complicated emotions he could scarcely describe. Chen Yu pushed the ticket toward his hand and reminded him there was still time to leave. The paper touched him; he withdrew his hand and held the loose casing. He knew he stood at a crossroads in life. This was not merely a repair, but a defense of his deepest convictions. Finally, he chose to stay and told Chen Yu to go first.

One possible revision:
The last ferry sounded its horn. Chen Yu pushed the ticket toward Lin Zhou. “We can still make it.” He did not take it. His eyes stayed on the dismantled radio. The paper brushed his hand; he drew it back and held the loose casing instead. Chen Yu waited for an answer. Lin Zhou offered no reason for staying. “You go first.” The radio lay open on the table, the ticket still beside his hand.

What changed:
- The warning becomes direct dialogue; its meaning stays the same.
- The existing hand movement replaces a vague emotion label.
- The crossroads/convictions commentary is removed because it supplies no established reason in this scene.
- Names, objects, decision and withheld motive remain. This is one restrained voice choice, not a universal rule against expressive narration.

Suggested request for YOUR excerpt, after the skill is installed:
/story-deslop
Detection only. Identify specific wording problems in the passage below; do not edit any file.
Preserve my fact list, viewpoint and intentional dialogue habits. Explain each suggested change in context.
[Paste your approved facts and passage.]

After reviewing the findings, request a bounded revision and a before/after explanation. For file mode, inspect the saved file and backup rather than expecting the whole chapter in chat.
原创改稿示例——为本指南写的一种方案，不是 story-deslop 运行记录。
已确认事实：末班渡船鸣笛；收音机仍拆着；陈雨推来船票并催林舟离开；纸边碰到他的手；他收手按住松开的机壳；陈雨等他答复；他决定留下，让陈雨先走。暂不揭露留下的原因。

改前：
末班渡船的汽笛响了，林舟看着桌上拆开的收音机，内心涌起一股难以言喻的复杂情绪。陈雨把船票推到他手边，提醒他现在走还来得及。纸边碰到他的手，他收回手，按住松开的机壳。他知道，自己正站在人生的十字路口；这不仅仅是一次维修，更是对内心信念的坚守。最终，他决定留下，让陈雨先走。

一种改法：
末班渡船的汽笛响了。陈雨把船票推到林舟手边：“现在走，还来得及。”林舟没有拿票，仍看着拆开的收音机。纸边碰到他的手，他把手收回去，按住松开的机壳。陈雨还在等他的答复。林舟没有解释为什么要留下，只说：“你先走。”收音机仍拆在桌上，船票还搁在他的手边。

为什么这样改：
- 用直接对白完成催促，不改变这句话传达的意思。
- 用原本就有的手部动作承载犹豫，替换空泛情绪标签。
- “人生十字路口”“信念坚守”没有交付已成立的动机，在这里删掉。
- 人名、物件、选择和未揭露的原因保留。这只是克制叙述的一种选择，不是禁止抒情旁白的通用规则。

技能安装后，可这样请求处理自己的片段：
/story-deslop
只检测下面这段的具体措辞问题，不修改任何文件。
保留我的事实卡、视角和有意安排的口头习惯，结合场景说明每项建议。
[粘贴你已确认的事实和正文。]

审阅建议后，再请求有范围的修订及前后说明。文件模式应检查已保存正文和备份，不必期待聊天里返回整章。

Expected files · 预期文件

Verify the result · 验证结果与边界

Sources and version notes · 来源与版本说明