> The problem is that these instructions are not applied after the model has finished doing the work, it becomes part of the same work - If you tell an agent to

> The problem is that these instructions are not applied after the model has finished doing the work, it becomes part of the same work - If you tell an agent to use short sentences, avoid jargon, never overwhelm you and only include the most important details, you are asking it to continuously compress its output into a lower-bandwidth format. > That compression is lossy. > You probably never notice what got dropped because the output still reads nicely. > ASD-STE is a great example because it sounds so reasonable. It was designed to make documentation unambiguous for humans. But an agent isn’t a human technical writer, and the raw state is often the most information-dense representation available. Meanwhile the style rules sit on the same instruction list as: solve the task, use tools correctly, preserve abstractions, don’t break anything. Author seems to have some misconceptions about LLMs. They already code-switch for us: the way they speak in chain-of-thought is completely different from the relatively normal language generated as human-facing output. You can observe this in any open-weight LLM, or in leaked CoT content from GPT5.x series etc: it's terse, barely follows sentence structure, lots of repeated checks and second-guessing. On the next turn the model usually still has access to its previous turn's chain-of-thought, and I imagine that's what it'll use as reference, rather than the softer human-facing prose. This being the case, asking the LLM to code-switch to an easier dialect for us doesn't seem that harmful. For a more extreme example: if I talk to an LLM in Japanese then its response will be in Japanese, but its CoT will still be in either English or Chinese (depending on the model). These are two completely separate languages, but the LLM just kinda deals with it.