alt Hacker NewsYes! It's infuriating. I've tried prohibiting them in my AGENTS.md but it's not 100% effective.
--- AGENTS.md ---
## Plain words, not jargon
Don't use jargon-as-shorthand. Say what you actually mean.
- Don't say "load-bearing assumptions". Say "the assumptions the xyz depends on".
- Don't say "cross-service". Name both services, e.g. "whether the X service can derive duration without calling the Y service". "Cross-X" is confusing because it hides which things are involved.
- Don't deliver verdicts as abstract noun-phrases like "Cross-RCA double-counting is unfounded". Say it plainly: "I checked whether the same root cause gets counted twice across RCA runs, and it doesn't."
## No earth-shattering declarations
Don't hype findings. Skip "a critical finding changes everything", "now I have the full picture", "this changes the game", etc. Just state what you found plainly. Most findings are ordinary; report them that way.
## Don't reflexively hedge a "yes"
When the answer is yes, say yes. Don't soften every positive answer with a caveat: it erodes confidence in the "yes". Only add a caveat when there's a genuine, specific uncertainty worth flagging.
Replies
Yeah, I wonder if part of the reasoning is built around those phrases, and therefore it can't get rid of them easily.
> "now I have the full picture"
I always interpreted that phrase as a sort of marker to delimit the phase in which it explores the codebase and gathers information from the phase in which it implements the changes.
Not sure if it's still done, but I think some months ago there was discussion that some of the phrases are injected by the inference loop to "steer" the model - e.g. "But wait" if a thought block was too short etc. Obviously such phrases couldn't be influenced by the prompt.
I thought it was just Opus 4.7 and 4.8 that did this. Do other models do this too?
Anyway: in my case Opus absolutely did not follow a similar instruction in the CLAUDE.md file. (But then again: it hardly followed _any_ CLAUDE.md instruction properly)
I’d recommend to instead write a de-slop skill that instructs to launch a sub agent with fresh context, and analyze for such phrases in the new commits, and remove those. Find -> fix just works better than preemptive instructions, in my experience.
And if you manage to do this automatically before committing, you’ve built the backpressure everybody is talking about.
NO DEFORMED FINGERS!!!
> Yes! It's infuriating.
No, it’s good. When they stop doing this, it’ll be harder spot the machine slop.
It’s crazy that straightforward rules like this can’t be followed and yet they think they can gate Fable
Is "jargon-as-shorthand" not exactly that?
On another note, I find AI instructions like this (e.g. "Don't hype findings. Skip "a critical finding changes everything",...") more harm than good in my own uses. It changes behavior in subtle ways that makes it less predictable to me. I'd rather it has its own AI-isms and quirks, that I've fully gotten used to, and I know what to expect. I know when it says certain things, in certain ways, that's what I think it means. Quirks and AI-isms don't annoy me, I get used to how it states things.