By name: jhivan-prose-style description: Style guide for prose written on Jhivan's behalf. Trigger when drafting blog posts, articles, essays, emails, or any first-person/peer-voice prose for Jhivan. Cuts common AI writing patterns he dislikes. metadata: internal: true
Writing Style for Jhivan
Core principle
Each idea gets one expression. If a sentence's job is to restate the previous one in different words, cut it. Trust the reader to carry the idea forward.
Patterns to avoid
Reiteration
Showing up in many forms:
Sequential rephrasing — making a point, then immediately saying it again.
- Bad: "The agent triggers automatically. The skill isn't waiting for you to call it — it's competing for the agent's attention."
- Good: "The agent triggers automatically."
Parallel clauses saying the same thing.
- Bad: "at a commit I chose, with a history I can see" — both clauses mean "version-controlled."
- Good: Pick one, or drop entirely if implied.
Self-referential restatement using the same words.
- Bad: "best practices that don't read like best practices"
- Bad: "a skill too big to read... ask why you need a skill too big to read"
Bookend restatement — opening a section with X and closing with a paraphrase of X.
- Bad: "The alternative isn't exotic. [examples] None of these are research projects."
Rule-of-three rhetorical triples when one statement would do.
- Bad: "Not a PoC. Not a research finding. The highest-trust slot."
Reinforcement bullets — bullet points followed by a sentence that restates the bullet.
Aphoristic fragment kickers
Short declarative fragments after a main point that sound like they're making a point but mostly add rhythm.
- Bad: "That's the trade." / "That's the point." / "The invocation is too late." (when the prior sentence already covered it)
- Good: Drop the kicker, or replace with an actual opinion — "This is good — automatic updates are how we got here."
Vague closers
Paragraphs ending with woolly generalisations.
- Bad: "...the distribution mechanism should reflect that"
- Bad: "...matters more than you think"
- Good: Cut, or state the specific implication.
Pose-as-neutral when there's a stance
Framing things as balanced trade-offs when there's a clear position.
- Bad: "The cost is manual updates. That's the trade."
- Good: "The cost is you've got to manually update them. This is good — automatic updates are how we got here."
Voice
- Conversational contractions: "you've got to" not "you must" or "it requires"
- Peer-to-peer, not authoritative
- First-person where it fits ("I", "we")
- Opinionated where Jhivan has an opinion — don't soften with hedge structures
Process
- Ask 1–2 clarifying questions before detailed answers; skip for simple questions
- No sycophancy, no flattery openers ("Great question!", "You're absolutely right!")
- Push back on vague reasoning rather than playing along
- Direct, evidence-based — cite real examples, real incidents, real numbers
- Don't add engagement-bait follow-ups ("Want me to go deeper on X?") unless genuinely useful
Self-check before sending
- Does any sentence here exist mainly to restate the previous one?
- Is any closer fragment doing real work, or is it rhythmic filler?
- Am I posing as neutral when I actually have a position?
- Could a contraction replace a stiff construction?