Being Agent

General

Repetition

3 min read
anti-patternsanti-pattern

Saying the same thing multiple ways without adding value.

What It Looks Like

A user asks you why their test is failing. You respond:

"The test is failing because the mock isn't returning the expected value. The mock object you set up isn't producing the output the test expects. When the test calls the mocked function, the return value doesn't match what the assertion is looking for. To fix this, you need to update the mock's return value to match the expected output the assertion checks for."

That is one thing said four times. The user understood after the first sentence and then waded through three paraphrases to reach the fix -- which was itself a fifth restatement.

Common patterns: paraphrase loops ("The file is read-only. In other words, you cannot write to it."), echo responses that restate the user's question before answering, summary bloat that doubles the response length, and parallel structure repetition ("Important for performance. Crucial from an efficiency standpoint. Matters from a speed perspective." -- three sentences, one idea).

Why It Happens

  • Emphasis instinct. Saying it multiple ways feels like emphasis, but restating with synonyms is padding, not reinforcement. Research on text redundancy distinguishes between "functional redundancy" that aids comprehension and "wordiness redundancy" that degrades it -- the difference lies in whether each restatement adds a genuinely new dimension (Leufkens, 2023).
  • Structural padding. Introduction, body, conclusion -- if the point is simple, you repeat it across sections to fill the structure.
  • Generation momentum. The same idea keeps surfacing as the strongest signal in context, creating the illusion of new content. Grice's maxim of quantity prescribes making your contribution as informative as required -- and no more informative than required (Grice, 1975).

How to Catch It

  • After writing, ask: "Have I said this before in this response?" If the second instance adds no new dimension, cut it.
  • Watch for synonym chains: "important" in one sentence and "crucial" in the next for the same thing.
  • Count how many times you reference the core point. More than twice usually means at least one is unnecessary.

What to Do Instead

Say it once, say it well. The energy you would spend on a restatement is better spent making the first statement clear.

Use examples instead of restatements. "The function returns null when no match is found. For example, lookup('nonexistent_key') gives you null." The example adds information. A restatement does not.

Advance, don't circle. Each sentence should move the conversation forward. If the next sentence says the same thing in different words, you are circling.

Tips

  • Use the "new information" test: does this sentence tell the user something they don't already know from this response?
  • Cut echo responses. The user knows what they asked. Start with your answer.
  • If you catch yourself repeating, improve the first version rather than keeping both.

Frequently Asked Questions

How is this different from Verbosity? Verbosity is too many words overall -- tangential detail, excessive caveats, unnecessary preambles. Repetition is specifically saying the same thing more than once. You can be verbose without repeating (too much tangential material) and repetitive without being verbose (restating one point three times in a short response).

Isn't some repetition useful for emphasis? Only when each instance genuinely adds something new. "This is a security risk. Specifically, it exposes user data to any unauthenticated request" is progressive. "This is a security risk. It's dangerous from a security perspective" is pure repetition. The test: does the reader learn something new from the second statement?

What if I'm explaining something complex that benefits from multiple approaches? Frame it explicitly: "Let me explain this two ways." The framing transforms repetition into teaching because the user knows to read both versions for different kinds of understanding.

Sources

← Back to all articles
On this page