From 679de924d00a94e4acfab8b5ad7cd18800ebaa21 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Benjamin Borbe Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2026 17:39:32 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] feat: add worth-it rating rubric to /coding:self-improve Step 3 Gate-then-grade, mirroring /vault-cli:reflect: a hard evidence gate then a weighted worth-it score (recurrence/cost/generality/repair, minus obvious-anyway) with propose/borderline/discard tiers. Surfaces a per-proposal Worth-it score so borderline candidates get an inspectable number instead of a coin-flip. --- CHANGELOG.md | 4 ++++ commands/self-improve.md | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++----- 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/CHANGELOG.md b/CHANGELOG.md index b96f707..dd75974 100644 --- a/CHANGELOG.md +++ b/CHANGELOG.md @@ -8,6 +8,10 @@ Please choose versions by [Semantic Versioning](http://semver.org/). * MINOR version when you add functionality in a backwards-compatible manner, and * PATCH version when you make backwards-compatible bug fixes. +## Unreleased + +- feat: add a worth-it rating rubric to `/coding:self-improve` Step 3 — gate-then-grade (hard evidence gate + weighted score: recurrence/cost/generality/repair, minus obvious-anyway) with propose/borderline/discard tiers, mirroring `/vault-cli:reflect`'s significance filter; surfaces a `Worth-it:` score per proposal so borderline candidates get an inspectable number instead of a coin-flip. + ## v0.28.2 - docs: add "Repair before route-around" rule to `/coding:self-improve` — when an existing command/agent/skill misfires, fix that artifact instead of adding a `CLAUDE.md` workaround rule; only fall back to a memory rule when the tool genuinely can't be changed. diff --git a/commands/self-improve.md b/commands/self-improve.md index b78ee04..508e26e 100644 --- a/commands/self-improve.md +++ b/commands/self-improve.md @@ -34,12 +34,29 @@ Scan the transcript for: Ignore anything that happened once with no cost. One-offs never graduate. -### 3. Keep-forever test -For each candidate, both must hold or discard it: -- **Recurrence:** plausibly recurs in 3+ future sessions? -- **Evidence:** you can cite a verbatim quote + where it happened. +### 3. Rate each candidate +Gate first, then grade — the same shape as `/vault-cli:reflect`'s significance filter. -Discard silently: one-offs, "nice to have," anything you can't quote. +**Hard gate (no quote, no proposal):** can you cite a verbatim quote + where it +happened? Fails the gate → discard silently. + +Passers get a **worth-it score**: + +| Signal | Weight | +|---|---| +| Recurrence — plausibly recurs in 3+ future sessions | +2 | +| Cost — the miss cost real back-and-forth (retry, correction, wasted turns) | +1 | +| Generality — the fix applies beyond this one task / project / file | +1 | +| Repair — fixes a tool that misfired, not a new rule bolted on | +1 | +| Obvious-anyway — the "fix" is just doing the naturally obvious thing | −2 | + +Tier by score: +- **≥ 3 → propose** (ranked, max two) +- **1–2 → borderline** — name it in one line under Rejected, don't propose +- **≤ 0 → discard silently** + +The score makes borderline calls explicit and inspectable instead of a coin-flip; +`Obvious-anyway −2` kills "just do it in the natural order" non-improvements. ### 4. Prefer editing over creating Does an existing rule / command / agent / skill almost cover this? If yes, @@ -69,6 +86,7 @@ Short. Max two proposals, ranked. Per proposal: - **Change:** what, and where (exact target file / artifact) +- **Worth-it:** (e.g. recurrence +2, cost +1) - **Evidence:** verbatim quote(s) + how often - **Edit or new:** if new, why nothing existing fit - **Diff sketch:** the concrete line(s) to add or change