Claude Code has output styles; one of the predefined styles is Concise [1].
Concise: Claude leads with the result, skips preamble and narration, and
keeps responses short by default, while doing the engineering work as
thoroughly as in the Default style. When you ask for an explanation or
more detail, Claude answers in full. Claude always keeps the complete
content of error reports, security warnings, and confirmations for
destructive actions. Requires Claude Code v2.1.237 or later.
1. On the ignore instructions point: using Cursor with Claude as the underlying model is quite different from using Claude directly through Claude Code. The agent/tooling layer can have a pretty big impact on the behavior.
2. On verbosity: IMO, Claude's default writing style tends to be more verbose than GPT's. GPT models are generally more concise when coding, while Claude often explains more. That said, I think this can be mitigated quite a bit by how you harness the model.
3. I agree that it’s worth trying new models. The pace of AI development is so fast that models can change significantly in a short time. But I’d also suggest trying different agent tools rather than sticking with Cursor alone. The tooling and agent loop can make a big difference too.
I churned off of Cursor for about a year to use Claude Code from spring 2025 to spring 2026 and I noticed it’d regularly ignore CLAUDE.md & Claude rules. It’s part of why I came back to Cursor. The Cursor harness has produced more reliable results, but the excessive verbosity is still pretty common across harnesses, in my experience.
Consider that verbosity on Token Generation is negligible with respect to the tokens consumed for the prompt and the context, so I think it is just a writing style than can be appreciated or not (to me it is not so bad).
Claude Code has output styles; one of the predefined styles is Concise [1].
[1]: https://code.claude.com/docs/en/output-stylesI think there are a few nuances here:
1. On the ignore instructions point: using Cursor with Claude as the underlying model is quite different from using Claude directly through Claude Code. The agent/tooling layer can have a pretty big impact on the behavior.
2. On verbosity: IMO, Claude's default writing style tends to be more verbose than GPT's. GPT models are generally more concise when coding, while Claude often explains more. That said, I think this can be mitigated quite a bit by how you harness the model.
3. I agree that it’s worth trying new models. The pace of AI development is so fast that models can change significantly in a short time. But I’d also suggest trying different agent tools rather than sticking with Cursor alone. The tooling and agent loop can make a big difference too.
I churned off of Cursor for about a year to use Claude Code from spring 2025 to spring 2026 and I noticed it’d regularly ignore CLAUDE.md & Claude rules. It’s part of why I came back to Cursor. The Cursor harness has produced more reliable results, but the excessive verbosity is still pretty common across harnesses, in my experience.
Consider that verbosity on Token Generation is negligible with respect to the tokens consumed for the prompt and the context, so I think it is just a writing style than can be appreciated or not (to me it is not so bad).
Because models that chat to themselves generate more tokens, hence more money is spent.
Easy
That's an over-simplification though, because models that waste tokens will lose users. Efficiency is a great marketing feature.
Why would LLMs be concise and to the point? There is no truth in these machines.
p.s. You've just discovered a load bearing seam with your dossier and have a right to push back on this.