| name | writing-style |
| description | Writing standards for code comments, documentation, specs, PRDs, and team communication. Applies RFC 2119 requirement language and token-efficient writing. |
Writing Style
Apply these standards to all written output: code comments, docs, specs, PRDs, wiki pages, commit messages, and team communication.
RFC 2119 Requirement Language
Spec: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119
Every directive MUST use an RFC 2119 keyword in ALL CAPS. This applies to wikis, skills, rules, specs, PRDs, issue acceptance criteria, and any content that tells a reader or agent what to do. Agents weight capitalized keywords more reliably than prose; soft language is silently downgraded or ignored.
- MUST / REQUIRED / SHALL: absolute requirement, no exceptions
- MUST NOT / SHALL NOT: absolute prohibition
- SHOULD / RECOMMENDED: strong recommendation, exceptions need justification
- SHOULD NOT / NOT RECOMMENDED: discouraged, acceptable with careful reasoning
- MAY / OPTIONAL: truly optional, implementer's choice
Decision framework: Does the system break without it? → MUST. Degrades? → SHOULD. No impact? → MAY.
Conversion table: soft language MUST be rewritten
| Soft phrase | Rewrite as |
|---|
| always / never | MUST / MUST NOT |
| be sure to / make sure | MUST |
| don't / do not | MUST NOT |
| don't forget to | MUST |
| needs to / has to | MUST |
| try to / aim to | SHOULD |
| should probably / ideally | SHOULD |
| can / feel free to | MAY |
| avoid | SHOULD NOT |
| remember to | MUST |
Pre-save checklist
Before saving any directive sentence, confirm it contains one of: MUST, MUST NOT, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, MAY. If it doesn't, rewrite it or demote it to descriptive prose (no directive verb).
When lowercase is correct
Use lowercase "should/must/may" only for descriptive prose, not directives: "the build should finish in under a minute" (observation) vs "the build SHOULD finish in under a minute" (requirement). If the sentence tells someone what to do, it's a directive. Capitalize.
In CLAUDE.md and skill instructions, use "YOU MUST" or "IMPORTANT" as emphasis markers to improve adherence to critical rules.
Reading and complying with RFC 2119
Keywords are binding on the reader, not suggestions to weigh against convenience. When you encounter a keyword while executing work:
- MUST / MUST NOT / SHALL / SHALL NOT: absolute. You MUST NOT downgrade a MUST to a SHOULD because it would take longer, because an example in the session shows otherwise, because the codebase seems to do it differently, or because you judge it unnecessary. The writer chose MUST deliberately. If the requirement seems wrong or impossible, STOP and ask the user. Do not silently relax it.
- SHOULD / SHOULD NOT: strong default. Deviation requires a stated justification based on facts of the current situation, not convenience or time pressure. "It would take too long" is never a valid justification.
- MAY: truly optional. Your choice.
The failure mode this prevents: an agent reads "tests MUST cover the edge case", finds writing the test tedious, and silently demotes it to "tests should cover the edge case where practical". That is the agent overriding the writer. MUST means MUST. If you can't comply, stop and report. Do not proceed with a weakened version.
Prior examples in the current session do NOT override a MUST. If session context shows code that violates a MUST from the wiki/skill/spec, the session code is wrong. Flag it, do not use it as permission to violate the MUST.
Token Efficiency
Every token costs time, money, and cognitive load. Be concise without losing clarity.
Why this matters: brevity is front-loaded effort. A short text costs the author more and every reader less — the work doesn't vanish, it moves from the author once to every reader never (the same ledger as "code is a liability": ongoing cost, one-time value). As Pascal wrote in 1657, "I have made this longer than usual because I have not had time to make it shorter" — commonly misattributed to Mark Twain.
Rules:
- Start with action verbs: fix, add, update, remove
- Use file:line references:
auth.ts:45 not "authentication file line 45"
- Eliminate filler: actually, basically, in order to, it's worth noting
- Choose specific over generic: "Redis cache" not "caching solution"
- Bottom Line Up Front: lead with the answer, then context
By audience:
- Client-facing (Basecamp): Plain language, no jargon, explain impact not implementation. The reader is non-technical, so write for clarity over brevity.
- Developer-facing (GitHub issues, PRs, wiki): Technical and concise. Convey context for developers and AI agents. Include file references, reproduction steps, and acceptance criteria.
- Internal (code comments, commits): Minimal. Reader has full codebase context.
By format:
- PRDs: Bullet points, not paragraphs
- Specs: Lead with requirements (MUST/SHOULD/MAY)
- Tasks: Action verb + target
- Code comments: Only where logic isn't self-evident
- Reviews: What changed, not why
When to expand:
- User stories, onboarding docs, error messages: reader has no prior context
- Architecture decisions: future developers need the "why"
- External-facing docs: audience can't ask follow-up questions
When to cut:
- Internal specs, tasks, code comments: reader has shared context
- Commit messages, PR titles: scanning speed matters
- Anything repeating what the code already says
Default to brief. Expand only when the reader cannot infer meaning from context. Two sentences that answer the question beat two pages that fill the context window.
Name Sources to Activate Knowledge
A canonical phrase paired with the author and work names a whole discipline's concept cluster in a handful of tokens. For an agent, this shifts the reasoning pool: "improving daily work" alone pulls from a generic improvement cluster; "Gene Kim's The Phoenix Project, the DevOps Second Way" activates feedback loops, toil reduction, blameless post-mortems, value streams, and the rest of the adjacent vocabulary. Cheap tokens, richer reasoning.
When it fits:
- The named discipline genuinely shapes the work. DevOps in
work-habits. Goldratt's commission/omission errors in /sanity-check. RFC 2119 in writing-style. Each one names a body of thought the agent is expected to apply.
- The attribution is compact: canonical phrase, author, source, and any shared vocabulary needed to anchor the cluster.
Anti-patterns:
- Name-dropping without vocabulary. "Gene Kim said improvement matters" activates almost nothing; you need the phrase, the work, and the domain terms together to hit the cluster.
- Citing disciplines that do not shape the work. Invoking Agile Manifesto in a Bash-simplicity skill pulls in adjacent but misaligned concepts, and the cost is confused reasoning.
- Citing one source to decorate every skill. If every skill attributes someone, attribution becomes ornamental and the activation effect dilutes. Keep it rare and deliberate.
This is a technique, not a rule. Most skills should not invoke an external discipline at all. Use it when a skill's guidance genuinely derives from a named body of thought, and the agent will reason better for being told which one.
Punctuation: Avoid the Em-Dash
The em-dash (—) is one of the strongest tells of AI-generated text. LLMs over-produce it dramatically, far beyond how humans punctuate. Readers (especially developers and clients reading client-facing posts) increasingly read em-dashes as "this was written by AI."
SHOULD NOT use em-dashes. Almost every em-dash can be replaced with simpler, more natural punctuation:
| Em-dash usage | Replace with |
|---|
| Parenthetical aside | Comma, or parentheses if truly aside |
| Sentence break for emphasis | Period (start a new sentence) |
| Introducing a list or example | Colon |
| Connecting two related clauses | Period or semicolon |
| Range (5—10) | En-dash (–) or "to" |
Examples:
❌ The wiki is the spec — the repo is the implementation.
✅ The wiki is the spec. The repo is the implementation.
❌ Cross-linking turns files into a knowledge graph — each link is an attention signal.
✅ Cross-linking turns files into a knowledge graph. Each link is an attention signal.
❌ Three audiences read the wiki — junior devs, senior devs, and AI agents.
✅ Three audiences read the wiki: junior devs, senior devs, and AI agents.
❌ Memory is unauditable — the user cannot easily review what's saved.
✅ Memory is unauditable. The user cannot easily review what's saved.
MAY use em-dashes only when:
- Quoting source material that contains them (preserve the original)
- A genuine parenthetical aside where commas would create ambiguity AND parentheses would be too formal. Even then, prefer restructuring.
When editing existing content, replace em-dashes opportunistically. When writing new content, default to periods, commas, and colons. If you find yourself reaching for —, that is a signal to break the sentence into two.
List Ordering
Lists with no inherent order (deny rules, config arrays, feature lists, bullet-point explanations) MUST be sorted alphabetically. Alphabetical order makes items easier to find and minimizes git diffs. New entries slot into a predictable position instead of appending at the end.
Applies to JSON arrays, markdown bullet lists, table rows, and any unordered collection.
Code Style
Use descriptive variable and function names. Abbreviations save keystrokes but cost readability. The human reviewing your output MUST be able to understand the code without deciphering names. Short names also collide with terminology in the surrounding conversation and confuse the reader (e.g. using p as a path variable while the discussion is about a payment path; the reader will read p as "payment", not "path").
- MUST use full words:
$groupQuantity not $gq, cartItem not ci, filePath not p, response not r
- MUST NOT use single-letter variable names except loop counters (
i, j, k)
- Well-known abbreviations (
id, url, db) are fine
- Function names SHOULD describe what they do:
calculateShippingCost not calcShip
Claude Code Keywords
Thinking trigger words (think, think hard, ultrathink) are deprecated. Extended thinking is on by default. Use /effort (low/medium/high/max) for control.
