| name | zero-shot |
| description | Use when the user asks to "check zero-shot", "audit few-shot anchoring", "find example anchoring", or invokes /zero-shot. Read-only audit of LLM-facing prose: principle over anchoring examples. |
| user_invocable | true |
| allowed-tools | Read, Grep, Glob |
Zero-Shot Audit
A semantic audit of LLM-facing prose for the Zero-Shot Instruction Preference: state principles, not anchoring examples. Read-only — it emits structured findings and writes no fixes. The human author decides which to rewrite, mark as scope-clarifying, or dismiss.
Purpose
Surface few-shot patches that anchor the model to specific instances rather than letting it apply the principle to novel contexts. Anchoring drift survives deterministic structural checks — it is a meaning-level pattern, so a semantic reviewer catches what literal pattern matching cannot.
Inputs
Manual invocation only (interactive /zero-shot):
- The caller passes target file paths or a glob; with no argument, the skill enumerates the in-scope set under the working tree HEAD.
- Files are read at their working-tree state — the post-edit, pre-commit content the author is about to ship.
Scope
In scope (LLM-facing prose where this principle applies):
- Skill instruction files (
*/skills/*/SKILL.md), considered outside formal/definition blocks
- Agent system-prompt files (
*/agents/*.md)
- Output-style files
Out of scope (the principle does not apply or examples serve a different purpose):
- Formal-definition blocks within instruction files — regions delimited by
── <NAME> ── headers (FLOW, MORPHISM, TYPES, PHASE TRANSITIONS, and peers). Notation patterns are the content there.
- Fenced code blocks (
``` ... ```) — code is content, and example code attached to a definition is part of that definition.
- Human-facing documentation (README files, design notes, reference material) — examples serve human comprehension there.
- Rule-tier and principle-tier prose authored for contributors — where examples may delineate scope rather than instantiate application.
- Session and context substrates outside this audit's surface.
What to evaluate
The principle (stands alone). LLM-facing instructions state principles, not examples. When a rendering rule, behavioral guideline, or structural constraint can be expressed as a principle, it does not need few-shot examples or category-level mapping lists appended to it. Few-shot examples create a soft-table effect — anchoring the model to specific instances rather than letting it apply the principle to novel contexts. A principle that needs examples to be understood is underspecified; the fix is to sharpen the principle, not to patch it with examples.
For each in-scope file, consider every prose passage outside formal blocks and code fences:
A Zero-Shot signal is a passage in LLM-facing prose where a principle is stated alongside few-shot examples or an enumerated example list whose primary effect is anchoring the model to specific instances rather than letting it apply the principle to novel contexts. The boundary test: "would removing this example increase the LLM's latitude in applying the principle to novel contexts, without losing the output-format or behavioral reliability that the containing instruction depends on?" If yes, the example is anchoring and a finding.
Two exemptions keep an example compliant:
- Scope-delineating examples — examples that clarify what falls inside or outside the principle's domain, rather than instantiating its application.
- Reliability-anchoring examples — examples whose primary effect is stabilizing an output format or anchoring a subtle, high-failure-rate behavior. Removing those costs adherence, not latitude.
Examples that instantiate a principle's application outside these two exemptions invite anchoring and are findings.
For each candidate finding, prefer the rewrite that strengthens the principle so application examples become unnecessary; retain a minimal high-signal exemplar when it stabilizes format or a subtle, high-failure-rate behavior. Treat ambiguous cases as severity: low and surface them for human triage.
Output
Emit a single JSON object as the final assistant message.
{
"summary": {
"files_audited": 0,
"findings_total": 0,
"by_severity": {"high": 0, "medium": 0, "low": 0}
},
"findings": [
{
"file": "<repo-relative path>",
"line": 0,
"severity": "high",
"excerpt": "<verbatim text from the file — single line or short span>",
"rationale": "<one sentence: how the example anchors application rather than delineates scope, and how a principle-only restatement would land>",
"suggested_rewrite": "<a candidate restatement that preserves directive force without anchoring examples>"
}
]
}
Severity calibration:
| Severity | Surface |
|---|
high | Rules sections, Phase prose, agent system prompts — places where anchoring materially narrows downstream LLM application |
medium | Distinctions, Composition notes, scope-boundary descriptions in supporting sections |
low | Borderline cases where the example may serve scope clarification under one reading and anchoring under another |
When zero findings result, emit the JSON object with empty findings array and zero counts. The summary always emits.
Self-application
This SKILL.md is itself LLM-facing prose and so is in scope. The audit may surface findings against the prose above, emitting a suggested_rewrite that preserves directive force like any other finding; the human author decides whether it lands.
Distinction
| Surface | Mechanism | Failure mode handled |
|---|
| Deterministic static checks | Literal pattern matching and structural validation | Structural drift between coupled artifacts; literal pattern leaks |
zero-shot | Claude-judge semantic review of LLM-facing prose | Few-shot anchoring drift that survives structural validity |
white-bear | Sibling semantic audit | Unnecessary competing-target mention drift |
Deterministic checks run at pre-commit and CI; this semantic audit runs on-demand via its slash command. Each maintains its own confidence curve.
Confidence
An advisory, human-reviewed instrument. Findings are candidates for an author to weigh, not automatic edits; the audit illuminates the decision and leaves the judgment with the author. Promoting any recurring finding pattern into a deterministic check is a separate, evidence-gated step — it waits on a pattern proving stable across varied prose, not on a single audit run.
