mirror of
https://github.com/fabro-sh/fabro.git
synced 2026-09-06 08:18:58 +00:00
Clarify spec-dod-multimodel prompts to respond with JSON inline instead of writing files
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Bryan Helmkamp
parent
6071bb0aa7
commit
9ddb325390
1 changed files with 18 additions and 18 deletions
|
|
@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ digraph SpecDoDMultiModel {
|
|||
|
||||
For EACH checkbox in sections 8.1 through 8.10, evaluate whether the current C implementation satisfies it. Be strict — a checkbox is only checked if the feature is fully implemented and would work correctly at runtime.
|
||||
|
||||
Output a JSON object:
|
||||
Respond with ONLY a JSON object (no prose) -- don't write it out as a file:
|
||||
{
|
||||
\"spec\": \"unified-llm\",
|
||||
\"model\": \"opus\",
|
||||
|
|
@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ Be thorough. Check every single checkbox."
|
|||
|
||||
For EACH checkbox in sections 8.1 through 8.10, evaluate whether the current C implementation satisfies it. Be strict — a checkbox is only checked if the feature is fully implemented and would work correctly at runtime.
|
||||
|
||||
Output a JSON object:
|
||||
Respond with ONLY a JSON object (no prose) -- don't write it out as a file:
|
||||
{
|
||||
\"spec\": \"unified-llm\",
|
||||
\"model\": \"gpt-5.2\",
|
||||
|
|
@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ Be thorough. Check every single checkbox."
|
|||
|
||||
For EACH checkbox in sections 9.1 through 9.13, evaluate whether the current C implementation satisfies it. Be strict.
|
||||
|
||||
Output a JSON object:
|
||||
Respond with ONLY a JSON object (no prose) -- don't write it out as a file:
|
||||
{
|
||||
\"spec\": \"coding-agent-loop\",
|
||||
\"model\": \"opus\",
|
||||
|
|
@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ Be thorough. Check every single checkbox."
|
|||
|
||||
For EACH checkbox in sections 9.1 through 9.13, evaluate whether the current C implementation satisfies it. Be strict.
|
||||
|
||||
Output a JSON object:
|
||||
Respond with ONLY a JSON object (no prose) -- don't write it out as a file:
|
||||
{
|
||||
\"spec\": \"coding-agent-loop\",
|
||||
\"model\": \"gpt-5.2\",
|
||||
|
|
@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ Be thorough. Check every single checkbox."
|
|||
|
||||
For EACH checkbox in sections 11.1 through 11.13, evaluate whether the current C implementation satisfies it. Be strict.
|
||||
|
||||
Output a JSON object:
|
||||
Respond with ONLY a JSON object (no prose) -- don't write it out as a file:
|
||||
{
|
||||
\"spec\": \"attractor\",
|
||||
\"model\": \"opus\",
|
||||
|
|
@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ Be thorough. Check every single checkbox."
|
|||
|
||||
For EACH checkbox in sections 11.1 through 11.13, evaluate whether the current C implementation satisfies it. Be strict.
|
||||
|
||||
Output a JSON object:
|
||||
Respond with ONLY a JSON object (no prose) -- don't write it out as a file:
|
||||
{
|
||||
\"spec\": \"attractor\",
|
||||
\"model\": \"gpt-5.2\",
|
||||
|
|
@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ Compare them item by item. For every DoD checkbox where the two models DISAGREE
|
|||
|
||||
Also identify items that one model flagged but the other missed entirely.
|
||||
|
||||
Output a JSON object:
|
||||
Respond with JSON (not by writing out a file):
|
||||
{
|
||||
\"agreements\": { \"both_pass\": N, \"both_fail\": N },
|
||||
\"disagreements\": [
|
||||
|
|
@ -242,7 +242,7 @@ Compare them item by item. For every DoD checkbox where the two models DISAGREE
|
|||
|
||||
Also identify items that one model flagged but the other missed entirely.
|
||||
|
||||
Output a JSON object:
|
||||
Respond with JSON (not by writing out a file):
|
||||
{
|
||||
\"agreements\": { \"both_pass\": N, \"both_fail\": N },
|
||||
\"disagreements\": [
|
||||
|
|
@ -284,7 +284,7 @@ Produce a single definitive audit result. Resolution rules:
|
|||
3. If they DISAGREE, use the cross-critique verdicts. If the critiques also disagree, re-read the spec and code yourself and make the call. When in doubt, fail it.
|
||||
4. Include any items that were missed by one model but caught by the other.
|
||||
|
||||
Output a JSON object:
|
||||
Respond with JSON (not by writing out a file):
|
||||
{
|
||||
\"spec_results\": {
|
||||
\"unified-llm\": { \"total\": N, \"passed\": M, \"failed\": K, \"failed_items\": [...] },
|
||||
|
|
@ -320,7 +320,7 @@ Group failures into:
|
|||
|
||||
For each IMPLEMENTABLE item, identify the exact file(s) to modify and briefly describe the fix. Rank them by impact (most important first).
|
||||
|
||||
Output a JSON object:
|
||||
Respond with JSON (not by writing out a file):
|
||||
{
|
||||
\"model\": \"opus\",
|
||||
\"total_failing\": N,
|
||||
|
|
@ -344,7 +344,7 @@ Group failures into:
|
|||
|
||||
For each IMPLEMENTABLE item, identify the exact file(s) to modify and briefly describe the fix. Rank them by impact (most important first).
|
||||
|
||||
Output a JSON object:
|
||||
Respond with JSON (not by writing out a file):
|
||||
{
|
||||
\"model\": \"gpt-5.2\",
|
||||
\"total_failing\": N,
|
||||
|
|
@ -367,7 +367,7 @@ Resolution rules:
|
|||
3. For ranking, average the ranks and re-sort. If one model identified files/fixes the other didn't, include all suggestions.
|
||||
4. Deduplicate items that both models identified.
|
||||
|
||||
Output a JSON object:
|
||||
Respond with JSON (not by writing out a file):
|
||||
{
|
||||
\"total_failing\": N,
|
||||
\"implementable\": [ {\"spec\": \"...\", \"section\": \"...\", \"text\": \"...\", \"files\": [\"...\"], \"fix\": \"...\", \"opus_rank\": N, \"gpt_rank\": N} ],
|
||||
|
|
@ -410,7 +410,7 @@ Constraints:
|
|||
- Keep changes minimal and focused — one checkbox per fix
|
||||
- Maintain the existing code style
|
||||
|
||||
After implementing, output:
|
||||
Respond with JSON (not by writing out a file):
|
||||
{
|
||||
\"model\": \"codex\",
|
||||
\"fixes_applied\": [ {\"spec\": \"...\", \"section\": \"...\", \"text\": \"...\", \"files_changed\": [\"...\"], \"description\": \"...\"} ],
|
||||
|
|
@ -437,7 +437,7 @@ PART B — Implement additional fixes:
|
|||
5. From the remaining IMPLEMENTABLE items (see response.triage_merge for the full list), pick up to 5 more and implement them
|
||||
6. Follow the same constraints as Codex (pure C11, no new deps, minimal changes)
|
||||
|
||||
Output:
|
||||
Respond with JSON (not by writing out a file):
|
||||
{
|
||||
\"model\": \"opus\",
|
||||
\"codex_fixes_reviewed\": N,
|
||||
|
|
@ -462,7 +462,7 @@ Validate the full set of changes from this round:
|
|||
3. Check for regressions: did any fix break something else?
|
||||
4. Check for consistency: do all the changes work together?
|
||||
|
||||
Output:
|
||||
Respond with JSON (not by writing out a file):
|
||||
{
|
||||
\"model\": \"codex\",
|
||||
\"total_changes_reviewed\": N,
|
||||
|
|
@ -526,7 +526,7 @@ And re-read the implementation files that were changed in this iteration.
|
|||
|
||||
Check ONLY the items that were previously failing. Have they been fixed?
|
||||
|
||||
Output:
|
||||
Respond with JSON (not by writing out a file):
|
||||
{
|
||||
\"model\": \"opus\",
|
||||
\"verified_fixed\": [ {\"spec\": \"...\", \"section\": \"...\", \"text\": \"...\"} ],
|
||||
|
|
@ -552,7 +552,7 @@ And re-read the implementation files that were changed in this iteration.
|
|||
|
||||
Check ONLY the items that were previously failing. Have they been fixed?
|
||||
|
||||
Output:
|
||||
Respond with JSON (not by writing out a file):
|
||||
{
|
||||
\"model\": \"gpt-5.2\",
|
||||
\"verified_fixed\": [ {\"spec\": \"...\", \"section\": \"...\", \"text\": \"...\"} ],
|
||||
|
|
@ -574,7 +574,7 @@ Rules:
|
|||
2. If EITHER model says an item is still failing, it counts as still failing
|
||||
3. Union all newly_broken items from both models
|
||||
|
||||
Output:
|
||||
Respond with JSON (not by writing out a file):
|
||||
{
|
||||
\"verified_fixed\": [ {\"spec\": \"...\", \"section\": \"...\", \"text\": \"...\", \"agreed_by\": \"both|opus_only|gpt_only\"} ],
|
||||
\"still_failing\": [ {\"spec\": \"...\", \"section\": \"...\", \"text\": \"...\", \"flagged_by\": \"both|opus_only|gpt_only\", \"reason\": \"...\"} ],
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Add table
Reference in a new issue