It’s ironic that the README has all the tells of being LLM-written: > 53 numbered rules, 9 sections, written in 1983 by people whose readers die when a sentence is ambiguous. The ones doing the heavy lifting: …

Not really a promising tell for a writing skill, IMO.

▲

mcintyre1994 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They acknowledge this, but I really dislike whatever style they're using for the readme:

> Yes, this README breaks half of them. Marketing is explicitly out of STE scope. The skill knows that and stays in the docs.

> Where it refuses to go: marketing copy, blog voice, brand writing. Flat on purpose.

(Each sentence there has an emoji that HN cuts out)

	▲	bcrosby95 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The problem with at least ChatGPT is no matter what personality you set it still reads like a smug asshole trying to sound smart. You can just pick different flavors of smug asshole.

▲

gchamonlive 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The readme looks to me concise and correct. Tested it and it works. Better than many human-written readmes I've seen around.