Thanks for your message and your review efforts, Andreas! This is an issue I've been struggling with, primarily in my own patches. Recently I've often spent more time and effort trying to get the prose into an acceptable shape than on any other aspect of a patch. While I believe that this has been fairly effective at removing unnecessary context, the readibility of the result is often still not great, so I'd be very interested to learn how other contributors manage to achieve good quality comments with their LLM-assisted workflows. Regarding your MR feedback: Do you think you could point out relatively precisely _what_ you regard as a problem, e.g. bad wording, unnecessary factoids, etc? For example, in https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/merge_requests/16543#note_700940 you complained about the "LLM Rambling", but I couldn't tell which comments or commit messages you actually found confusing, and why. (I had actually invested several hours into them.) I understand that my request takes even more effort from you – I will try to make it pay off. Thanks! Simon Am Mi., 14. Okt. 2026 um 13:08 Uhr schrieb Andreas Klebinger via ghc-devs <ghc-devs@haskell.org>:
Hello Devs,
Given the use of AI has increased recently I think this deserves discussion.
There are certain texts that are, ultimately, transient, or read less frequently as time moves on. This broadly includes tickets, which generally become mostly irrelevant once resolved.
While reading AI tickets can be exhausting, I'm willing, within reason, to accept them as a fact of live.
But there are parts of the code base in which we have prose that is written once and read often. I'm primarily concerned with Notes, Commit messages, and to a lesser degree code comments.
I've noticed more people have been posting LLM generated bug fixes (fine, it's policy) where seemingly little work went into polishing texts other devs will read many times. I consider this a problem.
I think it's important for certain parts of the code base to be written concisely. Something LLMs are terrible at today, and even skills make it marginally better. This is just a fact.
I think especially with the release of Opus 5.5 this has become *more* of an issue as the prose is now only bad in a myriad ways that are not immediately obvious rather than being obviously atrocious at a glance. Which leads people to take it as-is without putting effort into writing it by hand, or at least trimming it down after the fact.
This is obviously bad for human consumers of these texts. But even if you are "all in" on AI these texts are also objectively garbage for future AI use as they are bloated with irrelevant facts, meaningless past history, repeating things obvious from context and generally wordy for no benefit.
They are simply bad.
Is it fair to expect people to put in more effort into these? I think yes.
Notes are *the* way to understand the code base. And making them worse permanently degrades the ability of newcomers to understand the codebase. Similarly commit messages are hugely important to be able to determine when changes where introduced, quickly find ranges of commits to bisect for new bugs and many more regular maintenance tasks.
My plan is to aggressively request improvement of prose during MR review going forward.
Accepting bad prose is worse for maintainers because they have to read texts three times to understand what is going on. It's worse for agents because it fills context windows with irrelevant facts and pointless trivia that poison their reasoning ability.
It's just worse, and it takes little effort to fix.
But maybe I'm alone in feeling this way. If everyone else is happy to read Opus text output all, or at least to have opus read opus output all day long. Then I will surrender this fight and move to another hill to die on.
But if people are feeling similarly then please let me know and do likewise.
I don't think it's a big ask either. If you are prompting already just type a draft in your commit message/note and let claude do formatting/typo/alignment fixes. A sloppy text pushed through claude will in most cases beat what any model today will generate on it's own. Maybe this changes in 2 years. But it's not changing today.
It's not just a question of length. You can make a LLM generate shorter texts with a skill file or otherwise. But they are terrible at understanding what the tricky parts are, what is worth highlighting, what can be dropped because it is obvious from wider context.
I think it's *easy* for every contributor who knows what is happening in their patch to reach a reasonable standard. But we have to ask them to do it and to set the expectation. And I hope we can do so.
Andreas,
freshly back from reading some claude output.
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list -- ghc-devs@haskell.org To unsubscribe send an email to ghc-devs-leave@haskell.org