[case+refine] rubric refinements: scope/ambiguity split + auto+human mode (v2.17.1)#2
Merged
Merged
Conversation
…mode (v2.17.1) Two authoring-rubric sharpenings, plus the doc note they surfaced. Budget-Solver Fit: the checklist was headed "Too-large signals", but two of its bullets — an AC forcing an unsettled design decision, and a bugfix whose root cause isn't reproduced — are not size signals; they are ambiguity signals (a hole in the middle of an otherwise-small story). Under a "too-large" heading, an author sizing a small-but-ambiguous story could correctly conclude "not too large" and skip the two checks that most reliably make a budget solver drift. Signals are now two labeled groups — Too big (scope) and Unsettled middle (ambiguity) — under an opening line naming both axes as co-equal. The INVEST line is corrected to match: Estimable carries ambiguity, Small carries scope. Verification mode: `both` is renamed `auto+human`. The old label is relational — meaningless until the other two modes are memorized — and the token travels into story bodies, where the budget solver reading it never sees the rubric that defines it. `auto+human` names its own constituents. Its definition also moves from composition to action: the solver auto-verifies the assertable part and spells out the experiential part for a person at /evaluate. /solve and /evaluate cite the mode by name outside the shared block, so their `human`/`both` call sites were updated by hand. CLAUDE.md gains the caveat those hand-edits taught: rubrics-sync.sh --write propagates only the shared block, so a token rename that other skills cite in prose needs its call sites fixed manually — the sync still reports green. Budget-Solver Fit reviewed by a Fable-tier model, which flagged that a small-but-ambiguous story was the exact case the old single-heading list let slip. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Two authoring-rubric sharpenings that make stories easier for a budget-tier solver to follow, plus the doc note they surfaced. Rubric wording only — no behavioral/tooling change.
1. Budget-Solver Fit — split into two labeled axes
The checklist was headed "Too-large signals", but two of its bullets — an AC forcing an unsettled design decision, and a bugfix whose root cause isn't reproduced — are not size signals. They're ambiguity signals: a hole in the middle of an otherwise-small story. Under a "too-large" heading, an author sizing a small-but-ambiguous story could correctly conclude "not too large" and skip exactly the two checks that most reliably make a budget solver drift.
Now two groups — Too big (scope) (→ decompose or split) and Unsettled middle (ambiguity) (→ settle in the contract or split out) — under an opening line naming both axes as co-equal. INVEST mapping corrected: Estimable → ambiguity, Small → scope.
Caught by a Fable-tier review, which flagged the small-but-ambiguous story as the exact case the old single-heading list let slip.
2. Verification mode
both→auto+humanbothis relational — meaningless until you've memorized the other two modes — and the token travels into a story body, where the budget solver reading it never sees the rubric that defines it.auto+humannames its own constituents, so it reads clearly wherever it lands. Its definition also moves from stating composition to stating the action: the solver auto-verifies the assertable part and spells out the experiential part for a person at/evaluate./solveand/evaluatecite the mode by name outside the shared rubric block, so their`human`/`both`call sites were updated by hand to`human`/`auto+human`.3. Docs
CLAUDE.mdgains the caveat those hand-edits taught:rubrics-sync.sh --writepropagates only the shared block, so a token rename that other skills cite in prose needs its call sites fixed manually — the sync still reports green while the skills drift.Verification
rubrics-sync.shgreen; no straybothtoken anywhere in the skills; four manifests valid and uniform at2.17.1.