Yeah it's really, really bad. It's borderline unreadable. Claude seems to choose the most clever word choice it possibly can instead of the simplest. It's like the perfect inversion of how writing should be. Why say "load-bearing" when you mean "important"? Also, 50% of the stuff can't be load-bearing.

Another problem I didn't see mentioned in the thread is the conversation and reasoning leaking into text. It's a big problem for code comments. A comment will include multiple tirades about what we decided NOT to do.

Here's my list of mitigations:

- Keep sessions short

- Remind Claude of writing style. It will only last maybe 1-2 prompts as the thread notes, but if the session is short it helps

- Plan and implementation should be separate sessions to avoid the conversation leaking. My workflow: plan and brainstorm, scaffold APIs and tests, then have Claude write a seed prompt for the next session. I will also iterate over the seed prompt because it has the same text issues.

- Instruct Claude to compact comments often and have a rubric. Describe WHY, never WHAT. Comments should prioritize simple language. Etc.