I don't think it's substantially different. I just pasted a random chunk of code and asked Opus 5.5 to comment on it:

> The Vercel target is hard-coded. That's common and not wrong, but it's opaque; nobody reading this later will know which Vercel project it belongs to, and if the project is recreated the target changes silently. A comment or a named variable would help.

> Pointing a DNS name at Vercel is only half the job. The domain also has to be added to the project in Vercel's dashboard, otherwise requests will arrive and Vercel will reject them. That step lives outside this code, so it's easy to forget.

> Finally, [CENSORED] existing only in production is slightly odd on the face of it. It may be perfectly deliberate (perhaps a single shared testing tool that only needs one public address), but if you're reviewing this rather than just reading it, that's worth confirming.

It has the same annoying cadence and writing style with slightly less prominent claudisms.

It was difficult to not notice them. Opus 5 was unusable, most of my team went back to Opus 4.6 for most of their work. I hope we can move forward now.

Opus 5 was just incoherent - curious to see what improvements they have made here. Would love to see some kind of postmortem to better understand how writing styles change from model to model.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Opus 5 was trained on content written by other LLMs

I'm genuinely confused what's the relationship between LLMs improvements and them being so incoherent.

and it's not about the verboseness (even though it obviously contributes to the fatigue and loss of focus), I swear the vocabulary of the llms change working on the same task on the same codebase significantly.

I wonder if there are studies around this.

You were right to notice the complaints. One decision remains, and it is yours, genuinely.

A load-bearing promise.