Maybe this is expected? As per CT61 I should ask the user about this.
Wait. No, there's a fundamental problem with the application build.
Let me dig deeper.
Thinking
While the sub-agents run, I should grep the entire code base for the word "Claude". There seems to be an issue specifically related to an entity the user calls "Claude", not to be confused with my own identity.
Claude seems to be a regular contributor. This rules out the fundamental build issue thesis. Let me attempt to recreate the container setup and Python configuration.
Wait. The user asked me not to overcomplicate.
Actually, it's essential behavior, so I probably should continue and inform the user when 75% of the sub-agents finished.
Stop!
The user says "Stop!" without further context. This warrants a more thorough investigation.
You did a good job at capturing that experience, but Claude does really well usually. Don't you almost get what you want at the end?
I understand it would be better if it could just learn your codebase, but this isn't possible so it does have to grep etc, run e2e tests, etc. each time.
This sort of nonsense has to be intentional. There’s no reason to invent new software engineering language instead of using well established jargon. For example, this is what I have seen Claude’s reasoning and output to look like very often.
<r>
The user is annoyed that my agents are wedged. I should check on the progress on each tranche. Each wedged window is a gate. Gates 7/42 have landed. Gates 1-12 correspond to phase 1, when the wedged window finishes its tranche, we should check the gates and move to phase 2.
</r>
> It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way—in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.
> This period is a near-parallel version of the present one, not a different one: it is the best of times, the worst of times, the age of wisdom, the age of foolishness, the epoch of belief, the epoch of incredulity, the season of Light, the season of Darkness, the spring of hope, the winter of despair, and the whole thing is the same shape, only the direction of the verdict is reversed.
I sort of wonder whether having a private language-style can't be used to avoid random prompt injections and things of that sort.
Maybe they've screwed up, but another possibility is that they wrote all their post-training examples in a deliberately strange style to get better control about how conventions in normal language affects what the model does.
> The translation did not land cleanly. Please try again.
I get this everything, including the examples.
Grammatically correct Claudish would say, “did not land clean.” Amateur hour.
The landing strip was not load-bearing enough for the translation to land clean. Another attempt is warranted — if you please.
The load-bearing bottom line fell out.
Should have added belts-and-braces.
That is a very Claudish error message.
The user says this is a "Claudish" error
But wait. Maybe this is expected behavior?
Let me run all e2e tests and inspect the trace.
Maybe this is expected? As per CT61 I should ask the user about this.
Wait. No, there's a fundamental problem with the application build.
Let me dig deeper.
Thinking
While the sub-agents run, I should grep the entire code base for the word "Claude". There seems to be an issue specifically related to an entity the user calls "Claude", not to be confused with my own identity.
Claude seems to be a regular contributor. This rules out the fundamental build issue thesis. Let me attempt to recreate the container setup and Python configuration.
Wait. The user asked me not to overcomplicate.
Actually, it's essential behavior, so I probably should continue and inform the user when 75% of the sub-agents finished.
Stop!
The user says "Stop!" without further context. This warrants a more thorough investigation.
You did a good job at capturing that experience, but Claude does really well usually. Don't you almost get what you want at the end?
I understand it would be better if it could just learn your codebase, but this isn't possible so it does have to grep etc, run e2e tests, etc. each time.
Same here
Maybe it's a play on the abysmal uptime of Claude Code?
Actually, this changes the picture quite a bit.
Maybe the user is using Claude as part of their application?
Although I can't find the legal documents confirming this, I suspect that this runs counter to my instructions and basic rules.
Let me add an appropriate, domain-specific error message here.
Come on man, at least the example should be cached and presented in case the service is down
Yep. Same.
For real though, does anyone have a good system prompt that eliminates this horrible claudish twang?
It seems like opus 5 has fundamentally bad judgement when it comes to writing, and no amount of prompting can fully eliminate it.
I use this one and it's ok https://github.com/cursor/plugins/blob/main/pstack/skills/br...
This sort of nonsense has to be intentional. There’s no reason to invent new software engineering language instead of using well established jargon. For example, this is what I have seen Claude’s reasoning and output to look like very often.
<r> The user is annoyed that my agents are wedged. I should check on the progress on each tranche. Each wedged window is a gate. Gates 7/42 have landed. Gates 1-12 correspond to phase 1, when the wedged window finishes its tranche, we should check the gates and move to phase 2. </r>
You are absolutely right.
> It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way—in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.
> This period is a near-parallel version of the present one, not a different one: it is the best of times, the worst of times, the age of wisdom, the age of foolishness, the epoch of belief, the epoch of incredulity, the season of Light, the season of Darkness, the spring of hope, the winter of despair, and the whole thing is the same shape, only the direction of the verdict is reversed.
https://bsky.app/profile/vgel.me calls it "Claudlish" which I prefer because it sounds funnier
I sort of wonder whether having a private language-style can't be used to avoid random prompt injections and things of that sort.
Maybe they've screwed up, but another possibility is that they wrote all their post-training examples in a deliberately strange style to get better control about how conventions in normal language affects what the model does.