From 80b82abd8d5a43f629b9b0ca55336d63f3da5680 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jesse Vincent Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2026 18:24:10 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] fix(sdd): task reviewers re-read illegible evidence instead of re-running to regenerate it MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Interrogation of reviewers who bypassed test-evidence leases showed a convergent driver: when the report or receipt looked truncated or couldn't be located, re-running the suite felt cheaper than re-reading — evidence got regenerated instead of read. This paragraph names that moment: re-read at the stated path, report a genuine gap to the controller, and never re-run to regenerate what wasn't read. Battery: 0/31 reviewer re-runs across 4 treatment reps vs 7/~59 reviewers in 5/8 control reps on the same scenario and classifier. Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0185AJr98gHx5EmwqNeft4Sy --- skills/subagent-driven-development/task-reviewer-prompt.md | 7 +++++++ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) diff --git a/skills/subagent-driven-development/task-reviewer-prompt.md b/skills/subagent-driven-development/task-reviewer-prompt.md index fa910c61..ce796948 100644 --- a/skills/subagent-driven-development/task-reviewer-prompt.md +++ b/skills/subagent-driven-development/task-reviewer-prompt.md @@ -84,6 +84,13 @@ Subagent (general-purpose): Warnings or other noise in the implementer's reported test output are findings — test output should be pristine. + Evidence you cannot see is not evidence that doesn't exist. If the + report or its test evidence looks truncated, or you cannot locate the + results it claims, re-read the file at its stated path — and if it is + genuinely missing or garbled, report that as a gap for the controller. + Re-running the suite to regenerate what you failed to read is not + verification; illegibility of the evidence is not invalidation of it. + ## Part 1: Spec Compliance Compare the diff against What Was Requested: