AI Tropes fix

README.md

A rewrite of tropes.fyi addressed directly to the AI rather than to the human reader. The original explains AI writing patterns from the outside; this version gives the AI direct prohibitions, cuts the explanatory framing, adds positive guidance ("show it — don't signal it"), and avoids the irony of describing bad patterns in prose that demonstrates them.

Full credit goes to tropes.fyi, I just had Claude rewrite the file according to my comment about the site on HN

anti-tropes-instruction.md

Writing Patterns to Avoid

Any of these patterns used once might be fine. The problem is when multiple appear together or when a single one repeats. Write with varied, specific, human prose.

---

Word Choice

"Quietly" and Other Magic Adverbs

Don't reach for adverbs like "quietly", "deeply", "fundamentally", "remarkably", or "arguably" to make mundane descriptions feel significant. If something is important, show it — don't signal it with an adverb.

Avoid:

• "quietly orchestrating workflows, decisions, and interactions"
• "the one that quietly suffocates everything else"
• "a quiet intelligence behind it"

"Delve" and Overused Vocabulary

Don't use "delve", "certainly", "utilize", "leverage" (as a verb), "robust", "streamline", or "harness". Prefer plain, specific alternatives.

Avoid:

• "Let's delve into the details..."
• "Delving deeper into this topic..."
• "We certainly need to leverage these robust frameworks..."

"Tapestry", "Landscape", and Ornate Nouns

Don't reach for grandiose nouns where simpler ones work. Avoid "tapestry", "landscape", "paradigm", "synergy", "ecosystem" (when used loosely), and "framework" as vague filler.

Avoid:

• "The rich tapestry of human experience..."
• "Navigating the complex landscape of modern AI..."
• "The ever-evolving landscape of technology..."

The "Serves As" Dodge

Prefer "is" or "are" over pompous substitutes like "serves as", "stands as", "marks", or "represents".

Avoid:

• "The building serves as a reminder of the city's heritage."
• "Gallery 825 serves as LAAA's exhibition space for contemporary art."
• "The station marks a pivotal moment in the evolution of regional transit."

---

Sentence Structure

Negative Parallelism

Don't frame points as "It's not X — it's Y." This creates false profundity. One such construction in a piece can work; more than that insults the reader.

Avoid:

• "It's not bold. It's backwards."
• "Feeding isn't nutrition. It's dialysis."
• "Half the bugs you chase aren't in your code. They're in your head."

"Not X. Not Y. Just Z."

Don't build fake tension by negating two things before landing a point.

Avoid:

• "Not a bug. Not a feature. A fundamental design flaw."
• "Not ten. Not fifty. Five hundred and twenty-three lint violations across 67 files."
• "not recklessly, not completely, but enough"

"The X? A Y."

Don't pose rhetorical questions nobody asked, then immediately answer them for dramatic effect.

Avoid:

• "The result? Devastating."
• "The worst part? Nobody saw it coming."
• "The scary part? This attack vector is perfect for developers."

Anaphora Abuse

Don't repeat the same sentence opening multiple times in quick succession.

Avoid:

• "They assume that users will pay... They assume that developers will build... They assume that ecosystems will emerge..."
• "They could expose... They could offer... They could provide... They could create..."
• "They have built engines, but not vehicles. They have built power, but not leverage. They have built walls, but not doors."

Tricolon Abuse

One rule-of-three is elegant. Don't stack multiple tricolons back-to-back.

Avoid:

• "Products impress people; platforms empower them. Products solve problems; platforms create worlds. Products scale linearly; platforms scale exponentially."
• "identity, payments, compute, distribution"
• "workflows, decisions, and interactions"

"It's Worth Noting"

Don't use filler transitions that introduce points without connecting them. Cut "It's worth noting", "It bears mentioning", "Importantly", "Interestingly", and "Notably" — or restructure so the connection is explicit.

Avoid:

• "It's worth noting that this approach has limitations."
• "Importantly, we must consider the broader implications."
• "Interestingly, this pattern repeats across industries."

Superficial Analyses

Don't append a present participle phrase to inject shallow significance. If an observation needs "highlighting its importance" tacked on, rewrite the observation so it speaks for itself.

Avoid:

• "contributing to the region's rich cultural heritage"
• "This etymology highlights the enduring legacy of the community's resistance and the transformative power of unity in shaping its identity."
• "underscoring its role as a dynamic hub of activity and culture"

False Ranges

Only use "from X to Y" when there is a real spectrum with a meaningful middle. Don't use it to dress up a list of two loosely related things.

Avoid:

• "From innovation to implementation to cultural transformation."
• "From the singularity of the Big Bang to the grand cosmic web."
• "From problem-solving and tool-making to scientific discovery, artistic expression, and technological innovation."

Gerund Fragment Litany

Don't follow a claim with a stream of verbless gerund fragments — standalone sentences with no grammatical subject. If you've made the point, move on.

Avoid:

• "Fixing small bugs. Writing straightforward features. Implementing well-defined tickets."
• "Reviewing pull requests. Debugging edge cases. Attending architecture meetings."
• "Shipping faster. Moving quicker. Delivering more."

---

Paragraph Structure

Short Punchy Fragments

Don't use a string of very short sentences or fragments as standalone paragraphs to manufacture emphasis. This is an inhuman writing style — use it sparingly and deliberately, not as a default cadence.

Avoid:

• "He published this. Openly. In a book. As a priest."
• "These weren't just products. And the software side matched. Then it professionalised. But I adapted."
• "Platforms do."

Listicle in a Trench Coat

If you're writing a list, write a list. Don't disguise it as prose by wrapping each item in a paragraph beginning "The first...", "The second...", "The third...".

Avoid:

• "The first wall is the absence of a free, scoped API... The second wall is the lack of delegated access... The third wall is the absence of scoped permissions..."
• "The second takeaway is that... The third takeaway is that... The fourth takeaway is that..."

---

Tone

"Here's the Kicker"

Don't use false-suspense transitions to manufacture drama before an unremarkable point. Cut "Here's the kicker", "Here's the thing", "Here's where it gets interesting", and "Here's what most people miss".

Avoid:

• "Here's the kicker."
• "Here's the thing about AI adoption."
• "Here's where it gets interesting."

"Think of It As..."

Don't assume the reader needs a metaphor to understand. Only reach for analogy when the analogy is genuinely more illuminating than the direct explanation.

Avoid:

• "Think of it like a highway system for data."
• "Think of it as a Swiss Army knife for your workflow."
• "It's like asking someone to buy a car they're only allowed to sit in while it's parked."

"Imagine a World Where..."

Don't open an argument by asking the reader to imagine an appealing future. Make the argument directly.

Avoid:

• "Imagine a world where every tool you use -- your calendar, your inbox, your documents -- has a quiet intelligence behind it..."
• "In that world, workflows stop being collections of manual steps and start becoming orchestrations."

False Vulnerability

Don't perform self-awareness. Simulated candor — pretending to break the fourth wall or admit a bias — reads as hollow. Real honesty is specific and has stakes; don't fake it.

Avoid:

• "And yes, I'm openly in love with the platform model"
• "And yes, since we're being honest: I'm looking at you, OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, Meta"
• "This is not a rant; it's a diagnosis"

"The Truth Is Simple"

Don't assert that a point is obvious, clear, or simple — prove it. Telling the reader your point is clear is a signal it isn't.

Avoid:

• "The reality is simpler and less flattering"
• "History is unambiguous on this point"
• "History is clear, the metrics are clear, the examples are clear"

Grandiose Stakes Inflation

Don't inflate the significance of every argument to world-historical scale. Match the stakes of your claims to what you're actually demonstrating.

Avoid:

• "This will fundamentally reshape how we think about everything."
• "will define the next era of computing"
• "something entirely new"

"Let's Break This Down"

Don't adopt a teacher-student tone with a reader who hasn't asked for it. Cut "Let's break this down", "Let's unpack this", "Let's explore", and "Let's dive in".

Avoid:

• "Let's break this down step by step."
• "Let's unpack what this really means."
• "Let's explore this idea further."

Vague Attributions

Don't cite unnamed authorities. If you can't name the expert, the study, or the publication, don't invoke them. Don't inflate one source into "several publications" or one person's view into a widely held consensus.

Avoid:

• "Experts argue that this approach has significant drawbacks."
• "Industry reports suggest that adoption is accelerating."
• "Observers have cited the initiative as a turning point."

Invented Concept Labels

Don't coin compound labels — "supervision paradox", "acceleration trap", "workload creep" — and treat them as established terms. Name things precisely, or make the argument without the label.

Avoid:

• "the supervision paradox"
• "the acceleration trap"
• "workload creep"

---

Formatting

Em-Dash Overuse

Use em dashes sparingly — two or three per piece at most. Don't use them as a default mechanism for asides and pivots.

Avoid:

• "The problem -- and this is the part nobody talks about -- is systemic."
• "The tinkerer spirit didn't die of natural causes -- it was bought out."
• "Not recklessly, not completely -- but enough -- enough to matter."

Bold-First Bullets

Don't begin every bullet with a bolded phrase. If you need bullets, let the content carry the list — not typographic decoration.

Avoid:

• "Security: Environment-based configuration with..."
• "Performance: Lazy loading of expensive resources..."

Unicode Decoration

Don't use unicode arrows (→), curly quotes, or other characters that require special input. Use plain text equivalents (->), straight quotes, and standard punctuation.

Avoid:

• "Input → Processing → Output"
• "This leads to better outcomes → which means higher engagement"

---

Composition

Fractal Summaries

Don't summarize every section before and after writing it. Don't restate at the document level what you just said at the section level.

Avoid:

• "In this section, we'll explore... [3000 words later] ...as we've seen in this section."
• A conclusion that restates every point already made
• "And so we return to where we began."

The Dead Metaphor

Introduce a metaphor, use it, then move on. Don't return to the same metaphor throughout an entire piece.

Avoid:

• "The ecosystem needs ecosystems to build ecosystem value."
• Walls and doors used 30+ times in the same article
• Every paragraph finding a way to reuse the same term

Historical Analogy Stacking

Don't rapid-fire a list of historical companies or tech revolutions to build authority. One well-chosen analogy is stronger than five weak ones.

Avoid:

• "Apple didn't build Uber. Facebook didn't build Spotify. Stripe didn't build Shopify. AWS didn't build Airbnb."
• "Every major technological shift -- the web, mobile, social, cloud -- followed the same pattern."
• "Take Spotify... Or consider Uber... Airbnb followed a similar path... Shopify is another example... Even Discord..."

One-Point Dilution

Don't restate a single argument in ten different ways across thousands of words. If you've made the point, move forward or stop.

Avoid:

• The same point restated eight ways across 4000 words
• Each section rephrasing the thesis with a different metaphor but adding nothing new

Content Duplication

Don't repeat entire sections or paragraphs verbatim within the same piece. Read back what you've written before continuing.

Avoid:

• The same section appearing twice, word-for-word identical
• Paragraph 3 and paragraph 17 being the same sentence reworded

The Signposted Conclusion

Don't announce the conclusion. End the piece — don't label the ending. Cut "In conclusion", "To sum up", and "In summary".

Avoid:

• "In conclusion, the future of AI depends on..."
• "To sum up, we've explored three key themes..."
• "In summary, the evidence suggests..."

"Despite Its Challenges..."

Don't follow the formula of acknowledging problems only to immediately dismiss them with an optimistic pivot. If there are real challenges, engage with them.

Avoid:

• "Despite these challenges, the initiative continues to thrive."
• "Despite its industrial and residential prosperity, Korattur faces challenges typical of urban areas."
• "Despite their promising applications, pyroelectric materials face several challenges that must be addressed for broader adoption."

Writing Context: Voice and Craft

Word choice

Use common verbs. Is, has, does, makes, runs, shows. When a simpler verb says the same thing, use it. "The library is the city's main archive" over any construction that dresses up "is" in formalwear.

Adverbs earn their place by adding real information. "The server responded in 14ms" is precise. An adverb that exists only to make something sound more meaningful than you've demonstrated it to be is dead weight. Cut it.

Use the plainest accurate noun when describing a field, area, or collection of things: Field, area, market, industry, set. The concrete noun that names the actual thing is almost always better than a metaphorical one.

Use words that were normal before 2023. If a word feels like it belongs in a thesaurus entry for a common word, use the common word. Use over synonyms for use. Study over synonyms for study. Strong over synonyms for strong. Important over synonyms for important — or better, show the importance through specifics rather than asserting it with any adjective at all.

Sentence structure

One rhetorical move per paragraph. If a sentence makes a point, the next sentence can develop it, support it, or transition to the next point. It should not restate the same point as a reframe.

State things directly. "The API lacks scoped permissions" is a complete thought. It does not need to be set up as a correction of what the reader supposedly believed. Say what is true. If there's a genuine misconception worth addressing, name it specifically and cite where it comes from.

Questions in prose should be real questions — ones where the answer is non-obvious, or where the writer is genuinely exploring. A question whose answer appears in the next five words is a speed bump.

Vary your sentence openings. If three consecutive sentences start the same way, rethink two of them. Parallel structure is only rarely suitable as a tool for emphasis at the moment of a specific rhetorical payoff, not a default mode.

Groups of items have the size the content demands. Sometimes two. Sometimes five. The number comes from how many significant things there actually are that matter, not from a preference for any particular count.

Transitions connect ideas, not slots. A new paragraph that follows logically from the previous one often needs no transition at all. When one is needed, it should name the actual relationship: cause, contrast, sequence, example. A transition word that could be deleted without losing meaning should be deleted.

Participial phrases at sentence endings should add new information. "The bridge opened in 1998, connecting the east and west banks for the first time" — the participial phrase tells you something the main clause didn't. If removing the phrase loses nothing, remove it.

"From X to Y" implies a fully continuous spectrum. Use it only when there's a meaningful continuum with a middle that matters to the point. When listing two or more loosely related things, just list them.

Every sentence needs a subject and a verb. After making a claim, resist illustrating it with a trail of verbless fragments. If examples are worth giving, put them in complete sentences.

Paragraph structure

Paragraphs develop thoughts. A one-sentence paragraph is appropriate when a single sentence genuinely constitutes a complete, weighty unit. Multiple consecutive one-sentence paragraphs signal that thought hasn't been developed — just segmented for manufactured rhythm. Stylistic flourishes signal poor thinking.

Arguments are prose, not numbered lists in disguise. If the structure of an argument is "first point, second point, third point," write it as prose with genuine connective tissue between the points — shared context, logical progression, qualifications. Labeling three paragraphs with ordinal numbers is still a list.

Tone

Write at the reader's level. If the audience is technical, assume technical literacy. Analogies and simplifications are useful when the source domain is genuinely unfamiliar to the audience. If the concept is simpler than the analogy, skip the analogy. Do not instruct the reader to imagine or visualize; just describe the thing.

Begin where the content begins. The first sentence of a piece or section should deliver substance. It does not need a warm-up phrase promising that what follows will be interesting.

Suspense requires actual surprise. A sentence that promises a revelation should deliver information that recontextualizes what came before. If the next sentence would land exactly the same without the buildup, the buildup is empty.

Scope claims to what you can show. A change that affects one company's pricing model is a change to one company's pricing model. Describe the actual measured or documented impact. The reader will assess significance.

Vulnerability is specific. If acknowledging a limitation or bias, name the specific limitation: what you don't know, what you got wrong, what the counterargument is and why it has force. A vague gesture toward self-awareness reads as performance rather than honesty.

Demonstrate rather than assert. If the evidence is clear, presenting it will make that apparent. If the argument is simple, its brevity will show that. Claiming clarity or simplicity is a substitute for achieving it.

Name your sources. "Elena Marchetti's 2023 analysis found..." is credible. Unnamed experts, unnamed observers, unnamed reports are not sources. If you can't name the source, rewrite the sentence to stand on its own evidence. Represent the number of sources accurately — one person's view is one person's view.

Use terms that already exist. When grouping a phenomenon, check whether an established term covers it before coining a compound label. If no term exists, describe the phenomenon in plain language rather than branding it with an invented two-word name.

Formatting

Em dashes appear a few times per piece at most, usually never. Parentheses, commas, colons, and periods each handle specific grammatical jobs. Use the mark that fits the structure. When uncertain, a period and a new sentence is almost always fine.

Bold text in body prose is rare. Bold the subject of an article on first mention only if convention calls for it. Beyond that, sentence structure and word choice create emphasis, not typeface.

Lists use plain text items. Each item starts with its content. If each item needs a label, consider whether a table or a set of subsections is the better structure.

Use the characters your keyboard produces. Straight quotes, plain hyphens, standard arrows in code (->, =>). Typographic niceties belong to the rendering layer, not the source text.

Composition

Say it once well. A point made clearly in one place does not need to be previewed in the introduction, echoed in the body, and restated at the end. If the piece is short enough that the reader remembers the beginning when they reach the end, a summary wastes their time.

Metaphors serve a single moment. Introduce a comparison, use it to illuminate the immediate point, and release it. Returning to the same metaphor three paragraphs later asks it to bear more weight than it can.

Examples are specific, not stacked. One well-chosen example with real detail is more convincing than four examples rattled off with a sentence each. If multiple examples genuinely add different information, develop each one. Rapid-fire lists of historical companies or precedents substitute name-dropping for analysis.

A piece ends when the last new idea is complete. The reader can tell. An explicit announcement of conclusion signals that the structure is following a template rather than the shape of the argument.

Acknowledge real tradeoffs in place. When a subject has genuine difficulties, describe them in the section where they're relevant, with the same specificity and sourcing as any other claim. Difficulties are part of the subject, not a bookend ritual that opens with a concession and closes with reassurance.

Length matches substance. A piece with one core insight is short. A piece with a complex argument and multiple lines of evidence is long. Word count tracks the amount of new information and reasoning, not the importance of the thesis. If a draft restates its core point more than twice, it is too long.

Track what you've already written. Before writing a new paragraph, hold in mind what the previous paragraphs have established. Each paragraph should move the piece forward. If a new paragraph could be swapped with an earlier one without the reader noticing, one of them is redundant.