Yeah, but as you say, this is another LLM rewriting it. The amount of noncontextual information is nauseating and destroys the point of a README (in my humble opinion).

A human might have written a disclaimer like this:

> When not using Fable, pxpipe may require additional follow-ups to precisely follow your formatting instructions.

This kind of garbled information dump is very inconsiderate of the reader, and all good writing is considerate of the audience consuming it.

To be fair to the rewriting LLM, it was given only that single paragraph, with no other context and asked only to make it more comprehensible. But your point still stands. Here's what it said about _your_ rewrite:

That human rewrite is excellent. It ruthlessly cuts out the "narrative" of the test case (the transaction counts, the video clip, the "first try vs second try" details) and extracts the only piece of information an actual user reading a README cares about: what to expect when using the software.

Which suggests some ideas that should have been included in the prompt, to get closer to your ideal rewrite.