> A skill to stop your coding agent from burying the answer This is just an annoying thing for anyone. It gives a 10 page dissertation that sums up to, "it's good, nothing to worry about".
[flagged]
I-have-ADHD: A skill to stop coding agents from burying the answer
261–270 of 391 posts
Re: I-have-ADHD: A skill to stop coding agents from burying the answer
#262Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I read "load-bearing", "pin", "wedge", "rung", or "it's worse than what I'd previously stated" one more fucking time from Opus...
Imma get a sledge hammer and knock down the next "load-bearing" wall I see. Officer — it's not a crime, it's AI induced rage.
Get that em-dash out of here! /s
Re: I-have-ADHD: A skill to stop coding agents from burying the answer
#263I like "tersely".
"Tersely, what are today's headlines?"
I admit I don't personally orchestrate agents, but I imagine something like this would work:
"Tersely, write up plans for agents to implement this feature. Begin each of your agent instructions with 'Tersely,'."
I guess in addition to terse wording you'd get terse code? Which ain't such a bad thing.
Re: I-have-ADHD: A skill to stop coding agents from burying the answer
#264Re: I-have-ADHD: A skill to stop coding agents from burying the answer
#265Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I read "load-bearing", "pin", "wedge", "rung", or "it's worse than what I'd previously stated" one more fucking time from Opus...
It's bad enough from Opus, but it's worse how people have actually retooled their vocabulary around these tools. In the US tech industry, at least.
Have people done that? Or are they just meat puppets?
Re: I-have-ADHD: A skill to stop coding agents from burying the answer
#266Let's face it. Claude (in particular) is a terrible writer. There's a whole cottage industry of skills and CLAUDE.md instructions trying to push it toward writing better, but each new model iteration seems expressly designed to override all that so that it can load up its writing with unnecessary participle phrases, not-this-but-thats, burying the lede, and other nonsense. I genuinely wonder if the people inside Anth…
What I find strange is that it uses different prose in different contexts. It's absolutely insufferable in a general claude-code session, but then I got Opus to annotate a non-disclosure agreement and it uses very clear legal language. I was wondering how I could get it to speak like that all the time
> it uses very clear legal language. I was wondering how I could get it to speak like that all the time
At least with smaller models, reframing a task can alter code style. As in, we're not creating an X app, we're creating an exemplar of ..., which just happens to use an X app as the illustrative example. Which shifts style away from generic app cruft, towards exemplar of whatever.
So perhaps try to establish a legal context? Maybe "Compliance and Legal will be reviewing our conversation today. So it is important to communicate in a style they will find comfortable/familiar." or some such? "This conversation will become part of a legal deposition ...".
Re: I-have-ADHD: A skill to stop coding agents from burying the answer
#267The biggest "Claudism" that I have a hard time getting the LLM to stop doing is its insistence on talking about what it didn't do in addition to what it did. "I edited this.py and that.py but I did not edit README.md and I did not commit." or code comments like "This code invokes foo on bar and returns the results directly -- not through a callback." "This code returns true if the user clicked on a button -- not on t…
I have a pass with Gemini 3.8 low over every PR Claude makes that specifically flags this. It points out all the slop comments, docs, commit messages. Doing this has greatly improved my comment and commit text quality
Funny thing is, Claude often “disagreed with part of the review and decided to not adopt the requested changes” lol
Re: I-have-ADHD: A skill to stop coding agents from burying the answer
#268Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your comment quite badly violates the HN guidelines. You should review them: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > "Let's face it" "terrible writer" "other nonsense" "do Anthropic people actually talk like that" "Dario's engrams" Be kind. Don't be snarky. Edit out swipes. > I genuinely wonder if the people inside Anthropic actually communicate with each other like that. Has it been imprinted with Dario's…
Your comment technically does as well. Downvote the comment and move on. Leave the policing up to dang and the other mods. It is evident (in my opinion) as to what the comment was talking about. I personally switched away from all Claude models recently for the same reason.
> Your comment technically does as well.
Which guideline did I violate?
> Leave the policing up to dang and the other mods.
The mods have been very clear that they expect the community to do some self-policing and not rely exclusively on them to do it for them.
Re: I-have-ADHD: A skill to stop coding agents from burying the answer
#269Kinda offensive name to some of us btw.
Re: I-have-ADHD: A skill to stop coding agents from burying the answer
#270Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah okay, but if you want no pronouns at all then I think your comparison to "it" just confuses the issue. In the contexts where you would use "it", the "it" should use "I". But I don't think I share your preference either. It's a lot easier to talk about what I decided to do and what the machine 'decided' to do if we attach pronouns. "X was changed" can be too vague.
> In the contexts where you would use "it", the "it" should use "I". At this point you’re just arguing semantics for the sake of it. You know damn well what I mean and if you need more proof that it is perfectly possible and not at all unreasonable to want this just look at most software around you. None them talk like they are a person and those that do are often the most obnoxious and painful to use.
> You know damn well what I mean
I do. And I said to that "Yeah okay". No argument, chill out.
The rest of that line wasn't diagreement, it was explaining why your original comment was confusing.
> None them talk like they are a person
Which I explained with the rest of my post. They're all doing what I ask or automated tasks in a far simpler way. It's almost never unclear whether I did something or my OS did something. But when talking to an AI coding assistant that gets muddy very fast when pronouns are avoided.