Membership Required
You need to sign in and have a Premium subscription to access this content.
- 01 Turkish diacritics loss in LLMs cannot be solved at the prompt level; it requires a deterministic validation layer
- 02 4-layer detection with hunspell: suggestion matching, brute-force variants, ambiguity lookup
- 03 PostToolUse hook architecture enables zero-token-cost feedback loops
- 04 Benchmarked on 201 real posts: 4.8s average, 0 timeouts, 94%+ accuracy
+ Why do LLMs drop Turkish diacritics during text generation?
Large language models systematically replace Turkish-specific characters with ASCII equivalents during extended text generation. Systematic degradation is observed beyond 1500 words.
+ Can Turkish diacritics issues be fixed with prompt engineering?
No. System prompt instructions work for the first 500 words, but the model gradually disregards this instruction during long-form generation. A deterministic validation layer is required.
+ How does the Claude Code Turkish diacritics plugin work?
The plugin uses Claude Code's PostToolUse hook mechanism. It triggers automatically after every Edit or Write operation, analyzes file content with hunspell, and provides feedback via stderr.
+ What is the 4-layer hunspell detection system?
Layer 0 handles word deduplication, Layer 1 does hunspell suggestion matching, Layer 2 generates brute-force diacritics variants, and Layer 3 uses a 2,944-entry ambiguity lookup table.
+ What is the performance of the Turkish diacritics plugin?
Across 201 real blog posts, it averages 4.81 seconds per file with zero timeouts. On a reference file with 90 known errors, it achieved 90/90 detection with zero false positives.