5 exercises — practise omitting recoverable words for conciseness in commit messages, PR titles, changelogs, README files, and code review comments.
0 / 5 completed
1 / 5
A developer writes two commit messages: "Fix login bug" and "Fix logout bug". They want to combine them in a PR title using ellipsis (omitting the repeated word). Which PR title is the most concise and natural?
"Fix login bug and logout bug" uses verb ellipsis — the repeated verb Fix is omitted in the second clause because it is recoverable from context. This is the most concise form. In technical writing, especially commit messages and PR titles, ellipsis of repeated elements is both natural and encouraged: "Refactor auth module and payment module" (omitting Refactor in the second phrase). Option C is grammatically possible but shifts the noun to plural, which changes the register. Option A is verbose. Option D is awkward. The golden rule: omit what is fully recoverable; keep what disambiguates.
2 / 5
A tech writer reviews this sentence from a changelog: "Version 2.0 adds dark mode support and version 2.0 removes the legacy XML parser." Which revision best applies subject ellipsis?
"Version 2.0 adds dark mode support and removes the legacy XML parser." applies subject ellipsis: the repeated subject "Version 2.0" and auxiliary are omitted in the second coordinated verb phrase. This is the most natural and concise revision. In changelog entries and release notes this structure is standard: "This release fixes three edge cases and updates the dependency manifest." Option B introduces a passive and a semicolon unnecessarily. Option C adds also but keeps the full repeated subject — more verbose. Option D reshuffles to passive voice, losing the tight active structure.
3 / 5
A tech lead writes in a code review: "You can use a list or you can use a dictionary." Which rewrite best uses auxiliary ellipsis to tighten the sentence?
"You can use a list or a dictionary." is the tightest form — both the subject you and the auxiliary can use are elided after or, leaving only the contrasting noun phrase a dictionary. This is called gapping: the repeated predicate is omitted, retaining only the differing element. This pattern is ubiquitous in concise technical documentation: "Pass a string or an integer", "Set the flag to true or false". Option D retains can use in the second clause — grammatically acceptable but less elegant. Options A and C restructure unnecessarily.
4 / 5
A README instruction reads: "The setup script will install dependencies, the setup script will configure environment variables, and the setup script will start the server." Which revision applies ellipsis correctly?
"The setup script will install dependencies, configure environment variables, and start the server." is the canonical form using VP (verb phrase) ellipsis in lists. The subject "The setup script" and auxiliary "will" are stated once; the three infinitive base verbs share them across all list items. This is the standard pattern in README setup instructions: "This command will download the image, create a container, and expose port 8080." Option B repeats will redundantly. Option C uses semicolons unnecessarily and still repeats will. Option D converts to passive, which loses the active agent and is less direct for instructions.
5 / 5
In a pull request description a developer writes: "The old implementation was slow. The new implementation is fast." Which revision uses a demonstrative or comparative ellipsis to tighten the pair of sentences?
"The old implementation was slow; the new one is fast." uses the pro-form one to replace the repeated head noun implementation. This is a specific form of lexical ellipsis / substitution common in technical comparisons: "The synchronous approach blocks the thread; the asynchronous one does not", "The v1 API requires polling; the v2 one uses webhooks". The semicolon is appropriate for two closely related independent clauses in formal writing. Option B omits the auxiliary incorrectly ("the new is fast" is ungrammatical without one). Options C and D restructure awkwardly or lose the parallel contrast.