---
title: "Comment by Adam Lewis on \"Addendum: Getting Claude to Write Release Notes in Plain English\" | Hashnode"
description: "Reviewers will need to send a note back for the vague version, otherwise the directives sit in CLAUDE.md and the next changelog still says the dialogue asked. B"
url: "https://hashnode.com/posts/addendum-getting-claude-to-write-release-notes-in-plain-english/6aea0c0efe7933d074c2fb6c/comment/6af0ed7042bc442ca18fb6c7"
---

[Discussion](https://hashnode.com/posts/addendum-getting-claude-to-write-release-notes-in-plain-english/6aea0c0efe7933d074c2fb6c)

Comment [Addendum: Getting Claude to Write Release Notes in Plain English](https://hashnode.com/posts/addendum-getting-claude-to-write-release-notes-in-plain-english/6aea0c0efe7933d074c2fb6c)

[4d ago](https://hashnode.com/posts/addendum-getting-claude-to-write-release-notes-in-plain-english/6aea0c0efe7933d074c2fb6c/comment/6af0ed7042bc442ca18fb6c7)

Reviewers will need to send a note back for the vague version, otherwise the directives sit in CLAUDE.md and the next changelog still says the dialogue asked. Banning "the modal says" is easy, and getting people to write "the modal displays..." instead doesn't get them to name the mechanism. The before-and-afters make the case better than the six rules do, since you can see the leak in phrase one only once the rewrite names the token and the row. Does the style hold once it's writing about something less obviously wrong than an auth secret?