[thiagowfx]

> If there isn't a package for something that I need (and, surprisingly often, there are packages for what I need, and excellent ones!), I find that I can just do it myself. Quickly.

(Serious question) With or without an LLM?

[tedzards509]

GPT 5 and Gemini 2.5 Pro are usually unable to write compiling Typst code, getting it confused with Markdown. Claude Opus 4.1 and Sonnet 4 manage to produce compiling Typst code more often than not, but is far from being able to follow instructions.

I assume there is just next to no Typst code on the internet as of their training and the similarities to MD + MathJax result in LLMs hallucinating Typst syntax, often using `#` for headings or `\` and `{ ... }` in math mode.

Therefore, I must say that LLMs are more of a hindrance than help when writing Typst code. The syntax is nice enough though that I can fully understand that writing something oneself is very simple once you understand the concepts (content as a type; `show:` vs `show [rule]:` vs `set`; control flows with `if`, `for`, `while`). And for any questions there is an active discord channel with helpful real people.

[Myrmornis]

Presumably it works fairly well if you include a syntax cheatsheet and some example typst markup in the context you send to the LLM?

[throwaway_7274]

Without. I’ve recently tried using Claude, though, for things like mathematical drawings, and it works pretty well with a little back-and-forth and debugging. Especially with similar example code in context.

[tomjen3]

(not op)

I have had no luck with LLMs writing typst code. Normally its a better code writer than me, but the LLM (gpt4-o maybe?) hallucinated most of the document.