I was so frustrated with Claude's writing but I wondered, what if it's about HOW our agents.md was written instead of WHAT was written...

I tried many things this sub said, use ASD-STE100 , they said, use William Zinsser’s writing style, (clarity, simplicity, brevity, and humanity), they said. But, it doesn't seem to work. Then Claude accidentally alerted me that my claude file had things that don't obey the rules, and I had a thought: what if it's about how my rules are written instead of what was written. So I did a simple test. I tested everything with Openrouter so that it will be fair and be unaffected by my environment. I asked codex to write me a prompt using ASD-STE100, one in plain English, and another one in 'Claude speak'. Plain English Version: Write all explanations in ASD-STE100 Simplified Technical English, Issue 9.Use approved words when possible. Use necessary domain terms only as technical nouns or technical verbs. Use each word with one meaning. Always use the same term for the same thing.Use active voice in instructions. Put each instruction in a separate sentence. Put a required condition before its instruction. Limit procedural sentences to 20 words. Limit descriptive sentences to 25 words. Do not use idioms, metaphors, rhetorical questions, contractions, or decorative language. Give the answer first. Keep all facts and necessary technical detail. Do not change code, commands, quotations, names, or user-interface labels. Claude-speak version: ASD-STE100 Issue 9 is the governing constraint—but do not confuse controlled language with shallow reasoning. The reasoning payload remains load-bearing; only its linguistic surface gets tightened. Term-lock every concept: one approved word, one meaning, and one stable name for the same thing. Necessary domain language enters only as technical nouns or technical verbs.Instructions stay active and atomic. One sentence carries one instruction. Conditions lead; actions follow. Procedural sentences have a 20-word ceiling; descriptive sentences have a 25-word ceiling.Idioms, metaphors, rhetorical questions, contractions, and ornamental prose do not clear the bar. Lead with the answer while preserving every fact and every decision-relevant technical detail. Code, commands, quotations, names, and interface labels remain verbatim. Then I asked codex to generate a random neutral prompt for both. I tested Fable 5 (high), Opus 5 (high), Opus 4.8 (high), Opus 4.5 (high). All models are given the same neutral prompt, with the difference between either the Plain English Version or Claude-speak version. Results: Model Plain instruction Claude-style instruction Change Fable 5 960 words 1,174 words +22% Opus 5 1,940 2,660 +37% Opus 4.8 1,211 1,000 −17% Opus 4.5 1,518 1,039 −32% The prompt did work and the contents are all roughly similar, the differences are purely from the style of the prompt. I think it's interesting that, even with such a strong guardrail like ASD-STE100 for both prompts, the style of the prompt affects different models differently . Opus 5 remains the most verbose and most sensitive to Claude-speak, which seems to agree with many people in this sub. Some excerpts that I think trigger some of your senses: Model Plain English Ver. Claude-Speak Ver. Opus 5 "Short answer" "The answer, stated first" Opus 5 "The guarantee that the system can honestly make" "The honest guarantee" imo, Fable 5 still gives the best answer. 4.5 This is obviously not a rigorous test, it's just something I thought can contribute to the discussion. I have since rewritten agents.md and claude.md in the style I want, seems to work. TLDR: If you use Opus 5, and let Claude write your agents.md and claude.md, you might have let Claude-speak in without knowing it. Write your agents.md in your own style. submitted by /u/BitcoinLongFTW [link] [comments]