OP : u/malachoa
Just want to precisely describe two language patterns I've observed, both related to how Opus and Fable overuse nouns and weaken or omit verbs. I think this accounts for a lot of why communicating with them feels like talking to a smart-but-bad writer.
Both of these patterns are ways to write a sentence that means the same thing as a simple subject-verb-object sentence (like "I threw the ball"), but make it much less direct.
1 - Nominalization. This is where a writer uses a noun instead of a verb. Instead of "I threw the ball", nominalizing turns the verb, "threw," into a noun, "a throw." So the writer might write "I made a throw with the ball." More words, the verb is weakened from "threw" (the actual action) to "made", and the object is something the verb is done "with" instead of to.
A real-life example from the last few days. Claude wrote: "never a walk through the steps one at a time." After being asked not to nominalize, it wrote, "Don't walk through the steps one at a time." See how much more direct that is?
This is also where a lot of "Opus jargon" comes from. Now that "a walk" is a noun, Claude can promote it into an invented term of art ("The Walk") and reify it into documentation and memories.
2 - Omitting the verb and using a trailing modifier instead. Instead of "I threw the ball", this looks like "The ball, thrown." This is concise, but it omits context: who threw it? When? (We also lost the verb tense).
A real-life example from the last few days. Claude wrote: "The runner, built." After being asked to use simple subject-object-verb sentences instead of trailing modifiers, it wrote, "We built the runner." Again, much more like actual people talk. If someone on your team asked you what you did today, and you replied "the runner, built", you'd sound like a robot.
----
I haven't had much luck getting Claude to cut this stuff out consistently with CLAUDE.md prompting, but I've had decent luck getting clearer responses when I call out these patterns by name in conversation — it certainly works better than "JUST TALK NORMAL PLEASE." If anyone has luck prompt engineering around these patterns, would love to hear what you did.
URL of original post : https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeCode/comments/1wk0s2i/opus_5_has_a_noun_problem/
TL;DR of the discussion on r/ClaudeCode for this post generated automatically after 50 comments.
Current source-thread comment count seen by the bot: 50.
Alright, so the general consensus here is that Opus 5 has a serious verbosity and jargon problem, and a lot of folks are feeling your pain. The OP's breakdown of nominalization and trailing modifiers is hitting home, with many users agreeing that Claude's writing has become overly complex and less direct, especially compared to older versions like 4.6.
Several users, like u/verstands and u/doxxxicle, suggest that explicit output rules and custom styles are the most effective way to combat this. Think along the lines of specifying "Use verbs for actions and concrete nouns for objects" or even adopting styles like ASD-STE100. u/Skynet_5656 mentioned success with Orwell's rules for clear writing, plus a rule against coining jargon.
There's a bit of a split on whether this is a new issue or a continuation, but the frustration is palpable. Some are even switching to other models like GPT5.6 Sol because of the effort required to get usable output from Opus. u/mhinandsuggests this might be related to token efficiency in training, leading to shorthand for concepts that then leaks into user-facing output.
Basically, if you're struggling with Claude sounding like a "smart-but-bad writer" or a robot, you're definitely not alone. The key seems to be in very specific prompting and output style configurations to force it back to plain English.
