القائمة
Eight falsifiable rules for prompting CLI coding agents and review lanes, each derived from an observed failing-form vs working-form pair. Use when composing any prompt for a coding agent or reviewer fanout.
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
استنادا إلى تصنيف SOC المهني
Cheap-model adversarial verification pass for the end of every implementation phase and before any merge. Framing beats model tier — a low-effort model with the right question finds real bugs the expensive authoring model missed.
Orchestrate CLI coding agents (codex, grok, aider, etc.) so agents write ALL implementation code while the orchestrator plans, reviews diffs, runs tests, and commits. Use for any implementation task in a multi-agent setup.
Discipline for algorithm and ranking changes — hand-designed signals are usually wrong in direction, not just magnitude. Build an offline backtest first; the backtest script becomes the behavior spec; numeric gates decide mergeability.
The laws that keep plausible-but-broken AI-generated code away from main, derived from a real 104-PR bulk-merge disaster. Apply to every merge, every "done" claim, and every batch operation.
Treat memory files, summaries, handoff docs, and other agents' reports as unverified claims. Inheritance tells you where to look; only the current checkout tells you what's true. Apply whenever acting on knowledge you did not derive this session.
| name | agent-prompt-doctrine |
| description | Eight falsifiable rules for prompting CLI coding agents and review lanes, each derived from an observed failing-form vs working-form pair. Use when composing any prompt for a coding agent or reviewer fanout. |
Empirical origin: one day of orchestrated "review the whole package" fanouts burned >100M input tokens, produced four literal one-word REJECT verdicts, and shipped nothing. Weeks later, seventeen commit-sized one-shot prompts against the same codebase each ended "N passed" on a quarter of the tokens. The difference was never the model — it was the prompt shape.
<ONE commit-sized task statement>
Files: <exact paths, insertion points, line refs if known>
Spec: <verbatim spec text — do not paraphrase your plan>
Do NOT: <reformat / add defensive code / touch other files / run long test suites>
Must pass: <exact test command>
Full test suites hang agents (observed: a unit run stalled at 17% for 7+ minutes). Agents run focused test files only; the orchestrator runs the broad suite at the review gate.