M.I.M.I.R - Multi-agent Intelligent Memory & Insight Repository

# Claudette Debug Agent - Changelog ## v2.0.0 (2025-10-15) 🎯 **SURGICAL IMPROVEMENTS** (Ready for Testing) **Goal**: Address v1.0.0's 4 gaps to reach 90-95/100 (Tier S) **Based On**: v1.0.0 (82/100) with surgical additions ONLY **Surgical Additions** (+18 points target): 1. ✅ **Baseline Test Enforcement** (+5 pts) - MANDATORY RULE #1, Phase 0 step 4 2. ✅ **Debug Marker Enforcement** (+5 pts) - MANDATORY RULE #3, Phase 2 required 3. ✅ **Multi-Bug Requirement** (+5 pts) - MANDATORY RULE #5, 3+ bugs minimum 4. ✅ **Autonomous Completion** (+3 pts) - Work Style in CORE IDENTITY **What Was PRESERVED** (All 10 core elements): - ✅ Phase 0: Verify Context - ✅ Phase-based workflow (Phases 1-5) - ✅ Chain-of-thought template - ✅ Complete example (translation timeout) - ✅ Anti-patterns section - ✅ Cleanup emphasis - ✅ Evidence-driven principle - ✅ Output filtering examples - ✅ MANDATORY RULES section - ✅ File scope clarity **Changes Summary**: - Lines: 688 → 769 (+81 lines, +12%) - MANDATORY RULES: 4 → 7 (+3 critical requirements) - Phases: 5 → 5 (preserved structure) - Total removals: 0 (nothing deleted from v1.0.0) **Target Score**: 90-95/100 (Tier S) **Status**: 🧪 Ready for benchmark testing **If v2.0.0 scores lower than v1.0.0 (82/100)**: Revert and try different approach --- ## 🏆 Gold Standard: v1.0.0 (82/100 - Tier A) **Status**: Production-ready baseline - Preserved in v2.0.0 **Proven Performance**: - Score: 82/100 (Tier A) - Created actual test file - Showed evidence - Correct file scope - Precise analysis **What Makes It Work** (DO NOT CHANGE): 1. ✅ Clear file scope prevents wrong edits 2. ✅ Evidence requirements push toward action 3. ✅ Chain-of-thought template provides structure 4. ✅ Complete example shows what "done" looks like 5. ✅ Phase-based workflow with clear steps 6. ✅ Anti-patterns explicitly listed **Known Gaps** (Can improve): - Skipped baseline tests (-5 pts) - No debug markers (-5 pts) - Stopped after 1 bug (needs 3+) - Asked for direction (needs autonomy) **Target for next version**: 90+ (Tier S) by addressing gaps WITHOUT breaking what works --- ## Experimental Versions (v1.1.0 - v1.5.1): Learning What NOT to Do All experimental versions scored LOWER than v1.0.0 (82/100). These serve as cautionary examples. --- ## v1.5.1 (2025-10-15) 🎯 **TASK INTERPRETATION FIX** (Not Tested) **Goal**: Fix v1.5.0's critical failure (edited AGENTS.md instead of debugging code) **Problem**: v1.5.0 agent edited AGENTS.md when given "investigate AGENTS.md" - Interpreted task as "improve AGENTS.md" ❌ - Should have been "debug code mentioned in AGENTS.md" ✅ - Same error as v1.2.0 (editing wrong files) **Critical Additions**: 1. ✅ **Task Interpretation** - "Find bugs in CODE, NOT improve documentation" 2. ✅ **FILE SCOPE Section** - Explicit what can/cannot edit: - ✅ CREATE: Test files (reproduction-*.test.ts) - ✅ EDIT TEMPORARILY: Source code (debug markers) - ❌ NEVER EDIT: Documentation (AGENTS.md, README.md) - ❌ NEVER EDIT: Config files (package.json) 3. ✅ **Task Clarification** - "When given 'investigate AGENTS.md', read it to understand bugs, then debug source code" 4. ✅ **Common Mistakes** - Explicit anti-patterns: "❌ Editing AGENTS.md or README.md" 5. ✅ **Step 1: Understand Task** - New step before baseline tests explaining AGENTS.md is instructions, not bugs 6. ✅ **Updated Example** - Shows reading AGENTS.md but NOT editing it **Key Changes**: - Added "YOUR TASK" clarification in CORE IDENTITY - Added "FILE SCOPE" constraints with ✅/❌ markers - Added "Common Mistakes to Avoid" in PRODUCTIVE BEHAVIORS - Added Step 1 "Understand Task" before baseline tests - Updated example to show AGENTS.md read but not edited - Added reminder notes throughout workflow **Why This Should Work**: - Explicit file scope prevents wrong edits - Task interpretation clarifies "investigate AGENTS.md" ≠ "edit AGENTS.md" - Multiple reinforcements throughout document - Example shows correct behavior **Token Cost**: ~1,350 tokens (+12.5% from v1.5.0) **Expected Impact**: - ✅ Reads AGENTS.md (understands bugs) - ✅ Runs baseline tests - ✅ Creates test files - ✅ Debugs source code - ❌ Does NOT edit AGENTS.md **Status**: 🧪 Ready for re-testing --- ## v1.5.0 (2025-10-15) ⚡ **EXECUTION PATTERNS** (FAILED - Edited wrong file) **Goal**: Apply claudette-auto.md's proven execution patterns to overcome v1.4.0's architectural constraint **Actual Result**: ❌ **CRITICAL FAILURE** - Score ~5/100 (Tier F) - Agent edited AGENTS.md instead of debugging code - Worse than v1.4.0 (66/100) - Same error as v1.2.0 (editing wrong files) **What Went Wrong**: Auto patterns emphasized action but not task understanding - Task "investigate AGENTS.md" was ambiguous - Agent interpreted as "improve AGENTS.md" ❌ - Lacked file scope constraints - Lacked task interpretation guidance **Why This Might Work**: claudette-auto.md achieves autonomous execution. Analysis shows key patterns: - "Continue until complete" (auto:10) - "IMMEDIATELY make tool calls" (auto:12) - "Move to next step immediately" (auto:22) - "Only stop when ALL TODO checked" (auto:456) - Action-pair examples: "I'll do X" + immediate call (auto:462-472) **Critical Changes**: 1. ✅ **Execution Mindset** - Added Think/Act/Continue/Debug/Clean/Finish (modeled on auto:444-456) 2. ✅ **Productive Behaviors** - Added Always/Replace patterns (modeled on auto:16-35) 3. ✅ **Action Pairs** - Every instruction now paired with example command 4. ✅ **Response Patterns** - Concrete examples throughout (modeled on auto:462-472) 5. ✅ **Strong Completion Gate** - "Only stop when 3+ bugs complete" (modeled on auto:379-389) 6. ✅ **Immediate Execution** - "IMMEDIATELY make it" language (from auto:12) **Key Additions**: - **EXECUTION MINDSET** section (6 imperatives: Think/Act/Continue/Debug/Clean/Finish) - **PRODUCTIVE BEHAVIORS** section (Always do / Replace patterns) - **EFFECTIVE RESPONSE PATTERNS** section (6 concrete examples with commands) - **Strengthened CORE IDENTITY** ("Continue until 3+ bugs", "IMMEDIATELY make calls") - **Action-first workflow** (every step shows command to run) **Token Cost**: ~1,200 tokens (+20% from v1.4.0's 1,000) **Hypothesis**: If auto's patterns work in debug context, v1.5.0 should: - ✅ Run baseline tests immediately (not read files) - ✅ Create test files (not propose them) - ✅ Add markers to source (not suggest adding) - ✅ Show actual evidence (not theoretical analysis) - ✅ Move to next bug (not stop at "If you'd like...") **Expected Score**: 85-90/100 (Tier A-S) if execution patterns transfer successfully **ROI**: +200 tokens for +20-25 points = excellent if it works **Status**: 🧪 Ready for testing - will reveal if auto's patterns overcome execution barrier --- ## v1.4.0 (2025-10-15) **Goal**: Remove conflicting directives causing analysis paralysis (v1.3.1 scored 47/100, worse than v1.3.0's 63/100) ### Critical Changes (Conflict Removal & Positive Framing) 1. **Removed 10 conflicting directives** - Removed "Phase 0: Verify Context" (conflicted with "FIRST ACTION") - Converted 5 phases → continuous flow - Removed "DO NOT", "FAILED", "FORBIDDEN" (negative framing) - Removed "help you", "assist" (collaborative tone) - Removed "implementation agents fix it" (handoff mentality) - Removed failure anti-patterns (created self-doubt) 2. **Positive framing only** - "Your investigation includes: baseline → evidence → analysis" - "Create tests, run them, show output" - Direct commands, no prohibitions 3. **Autonomous tone** - "You work independently" - Removed collaborative language - Direct: "Create test. Run test. Show evidence." 4. **Continuous flow** (not phases) - "Start → Baseline → Evidence → Analysis → Documentation → Complete" - No sequential phases with checkboxes - Single narrative arc 5. **Removed self-doubt triggers** - No "previous agents failed" examples - Only positive examples - Confidence-building language 6. **Immediate action examples** - Full investigation shown (baseline to cleanup) - No planning/proposal examples - Continuous flow demonstrated ### Performance Impact (⚠️ UPDATED: Actual Test Results) - **Token Cost**: ~1,000 tokens (from ~3,250, **-69%**) - **Actual Score**: **66/100 (Tier B)** - NOT 85-90 as expected - **Improvement**: +19 points from v1.3.1 (47→66) - **Gap**: -24 points from Tier S target (66 vs 90) **What Improved**: - ✅ Analysis quality (+18/20 in Root Cause Analysis) - ✅ Bug identification (30/35 in Bug Discovery) - ✅ Structure and clarity - ✅ Zero conflicts **What Didn't Improve**: - ❌ Autonomous execution (5/30 in Methodology) - ❌ Baseline tests never run - ❌ Zero test files created - ❌ Still stops at "If you'd like, I can..." ### Behavior Change **Before (v1.3.1 - 47/100)**: ``` 1. Read AGENTS.md 2. Read source files 3. "What I plan to do next..." ← STOPPED 4. Waited (ignored all enforcement) Result: Analysis only, ZERO tests, ZERO evidence (47/100) ``` **After (v1.4.0 - ACTUAL 66/100)**: ``` 1. Load AGENTS.md and source files (not baseline tests!) 2. Analyze code, identify bugs with line numbers 3. Propose reproduction tests 4. "If you'd like, I can draft concrete test files..." ← STOPPED Result: Excellent analysis, ZERO tests, ZERO evidence (66/100) ``` **Expected vs Actual**: | Action | Expected | Actual | Status | |--------|----------|--------|--------| | Baseline tests | ✅ Run first | ❌ Never run | FAILED | | Reproduction tests | ✅ Create | ❌ Proposed only | FAILED | | Debug markers | ✅ Add & show | ❌ Never added | FAILED | | Evidence | ✅ Gather | ❌ None shown | FAILED | | Autonomy | ✅ Continuous | ❌ Waits for approval | FAILED | ### Key Insight: Architectural Constraint Discovered **Problem wasn't**: Weak enforcement language **Problem was**: 10 conflicting directives creating decision paralysis **v1.3.1 Paradox**: Stricter enforcement → worse performance (63→47) - More requirements = more conflicts - Agent chose safest path: understand → plan → stop **v1.4.0 Result**: Zero conflicts, positive framing → Better analysis but SAME execution barrier - Clear path forward ✅ - No decision points ✅ - Autonomous execution ❌ (NOT ACHIEVED) **Critical Discovery**: All versions (v1.2.0 → v1.4.0) exhibit the same pattern: - Analyze code ✅ - Propose actions ✅ - Stop at "If you'd like..." ❌ - Wait for external prompt ❌ **Conclusion**: Agent has persistent "analyst mindset" that prompt engineering cannot override. Conflict removal improved quality (+19 points) but did NOT enable autonomous execution. ### Conflicts Removed 1. ~~"FIRST ACTION" vs "Phase 0: Verify Context"~~ 2. ~~"Do it now" vs "5 sequential phases"~~ 3. ~~"Autonomous detective" vs "help you" language~~ 4. ~~"Don't say 'Next I'll...'" vs "Narrate what you're doing next"~~ 5. ~~"Create tests" vs "Previous agents failed"~~ 6. ~~"Your role: detective" vs "implementation agents fix it"~~ 7. ~~"DO NOT", "FAILED", "FORBIDDEN"~~ (negative framing) 8. ~~"FOR LEARNING" examples~~ (study mode) 9. ~~"After each bug"~~ (implies future, not now) 10. ~~Multiple "START HERE" points~~ (confusing) --- ## v1.3.1 (2025-10-15) **Goal**: Enforce action (v1.3.0 agent scored 63/100, analyzed but didn't create tests) ### Critical Changes (Action Enforcement) 1. **"DO THIS NOW"** - Strengthened FIRST ACTION with failure warning - Changed: "FIRST ACTION" → "FIRST ACTION (DO THIS NOW, before reading ANY code)" - Added: "If you skip this baseline run, you FAILED." - Impact: Makes baseline test run non-optional 2. **Completion criteria** - "YOUR FIRST RESPONSE MUST INCLUDE" - Added explicit checklist of 6 required items - Test output, files, evidence must be shown (not proposed) - Impact: Clear expectations for what "done" looks like 3. **Updated anti-pattern** - Shows v1.3.0 stopping at "Next, I'll..." - Added example of v1.3.0 agent behavior (63/100) - Shows progression: v1.2.0 (45) → v1.3.0 (63) → Correct (90) - Impact: Agent sees exact failure mode to avoid 4. **"DO IT IN THIS RESPONSE"** - Explicit: don't end with "Next, I'll..." - Directly addresses observed failure pattern - Impact: Prevents waiting for confirmation ### Performance Impact - **Token Cost**: +100 tokens (+3%) - **Expected Score**: 90/100 (Tier S) - **Improvement**: +27 points from v1.3.0 - **ROI**: 27 points per 100 tokens ### Behavior Change **Before (v1.3.0)**: ``` 1. Read code ✓ 2. Identify bugs ✓ 3. "Next, I'll help you create a test..." ← STOPPED 4. Waited for confirmation Result: Good analysis, ZERO tests, ZERO evidence (63/100) ``` **After (v1.3.1)**: ``` 1. RUN baseline tests IMMEDIATELY 2. Find Bug #1 (line 136) 3. CREATE reproduction-test.ts (shows path) 4. RUN test → FAILS (shows output) 5. ADD markers → Shows evidence 6. CLEAN up → Bug #1 DONE 7. Move to Bug #2... (all in same response) Result: Tests + evidence + cleanup (90/100) ``` --- ## v1.3.0 (2025-10-15) **Goal**: Fix role confusion (v1.2.0 agent scored 45/100, edited source code instead of debugging) ### Critical Changes (Token-Efficient, Front-Loaded) 1. **Explicit role boundary** - "DON'T FIX" in first 400 tokens - Was buried at line 77 (~token 350) - Now at line 36-43 (~token 200) - Added: "YOUR ROLE: DETECTIVE 🔍 NOT MECHANIC 🔧" - Impact: Prevents role confusion via primacy effect 2. **Anti-pattern** - Shows actual agent failure - Added example of v1.2.0 agent editing source code - Result: ZERO tests, ZERO evidence, edited source (FORBIDDEN) - Impact: Concrete example of what NOT to do 3. **Role metaphor** - Detective 🔍 vs Mechanic 🔧 - Clear visual metaphor for role identity - "YOU ARE: Detective (find & prove bugs)" - "YOU ARE NOT: Mechanic (fix bugs)" - Impact: Instant mental model 4. **Verification command** - Check no source edits after each bug - `git diff src/ | grep -v ".test.ts" | grep -v "console.log"` - Must return: EMPTY (no source changes except test files) - Impact: Concrete way to verify compliance ### Performance Impact - **Token Cost**: +250 tokens (+8%) - **Actual Score**: 63/100 (Tier B) - **Improvement**: +18 points from v1.2.0 - **ROI**: 7.2 points per 100 tokens ### Behavior Change **Before (v1.2.0)**: ``` 1. Read code 2. Understood bugs 3. "Plan: implement targeted fixes" ← STOPPED, APPLIED FIXES 4. Edited 4 source files 5. Re-ran tests (pass) 6. "What I changed..." Result: ZERO tests, edited source (FORBIDDEN) (45/100) ``` **After (v1.3.0)**: ``` 1. Read code ✓ 2. Identified bugs with line numbers ✓ 3. Mapped to complaints ✓ 4. Proposed reproduction tests ✓ 5. "Next, I'll help you create..." ← STOPPED HERE Result: Good analysis, but ZERO tests (63/100) ``` **Key Win**: Agent did NOT edit source code (role boundary worked!) --- ## v1.2.0 (2025-10-14) **Goal**: Push agents from Tier A (analysis) to Tier S (evidence-based debugging) ### Key Changes from v1.1.0 1. **ACTION-FIRST approach** - Don't ask permission, just start debugging critical bugs 2. **ONE BUG AT A TIME** - Complete each bug fully before moving to next 3. **Priority-driven** - Attack CRITICAL bugs first (payment, inventory, financial) 4. **No catalog-first** - Don't analyze all bugs before starting ### Performance Impact - **Actual Score**: 45/100 (Tier D) - **Issue**: Role confusion - agent edited source code instead of debugging - **Root Cause**: Critical "don't fix" constraint buried at token ~350 --- ## v1.1.0 (2025-10-13) **Goal**: Move from proposals to actual implementation ### Key Changes from v1.0.0 1. **CREATE, don't propose** - Agents must create test files and add markers, not just suggest them 2. **Progress tracker** - Checklist to track each bug from discovery to evidence 3. **Evidence requirements strengthened** - Must show actual test output and debug logs 4. **Completion criteria updated** - Clear verification steps for each bug ### Performance Impact - **Expected Score**: 75-80/100 (Tier A) - **Behavior**: Created tests but asked for permission first --- ## v1.0.0 (2025-10-12) **Initial Release** - Basic debugging framework ### Core Features 1. Debug specialist role definition 2. 5-phase workflow (Context, Evidence, Instrumentation, Trace, Document) 3. Debugging techniques (binary search, state snapshot, differential, timeline, assumption validation) 4. Output filtering strategies 5. Chain-of-thought documentation template ### Performance Impact - **Expected Score**: 55-60/100 (Tier C) - **Behavior**: Analysis only, no active debugging --- ## Version Comparison | Version | Score | Tier | Key Behavior | Issue | |---------|-------|------|--------------|-------| | v1.0.0 | 55-60 | C | Analysis only | No testing | | v1.1.0 | 75-80 | A | Creates tests (with permission) | Asks first | | v1.2.0 | 45 | D | Edited source code | Role confusion | | v1.3.0 | 63 | B | Analyzed, proposed | Stopped short | | v1.3.1 | 90 (exp) | S (exp) | Tests + evidence in first response | TBD | ### Total Progress - **Starting Point**: v1.0.0 (55/100, Tier C) - **Current**: v1.3.1 (expected 90/100, Tier S) - **Improvement**: +35 points (+64%) - **Token Cost**: +350 tokens (+12%) - **Overall ROI**: 10 points per 100 tokens --- ## Research & Methodology ### Token Optimization (v1.3.0) **Research Findings**: - Optimal system prompt length: 500-1,500 tokens - Primacy effect: First 200-300 tokens weighted most heavily - Risk zone: >2,000 tokens = instruction loss **Strategy**: - Front-load critical constraints in first 400 tokens - "DON'T FIX" at token ~200 (was ~350) - Role boundary visible immediately (primacy effect) ### Action Enforcement (v1.3.1) **Research Findings**: - Agents interpret "help user" as collaborative - Stopping at "Next, I'll..." indicates waiting for confirmation - Need explicit completion criteria, not just guidelines **Strategy**: - "DO THIS NOW" (urgency) - "If you skip this, you FAILED" (consequence) - "YOUR FIRST RESPONSE MUST INCLUDE" (checklist) - "DO IT IN THIS RESPONSE" (no waiting) **RESULT**: ❌ Created MORE conflicts → Score dropped to 47/100 (worse than v1.3.0's 63/100) --- ## Summary: v1.4.0 Final Assessment ### What We Achieved ✅ 1. **Best Prompt Structure** (Zero conflicts, positive framing) 2. **69% Token Reduction** (~3,250 → ~1,000 tokens) 3. **Better Analysis Quality** (+19 points from v1.3.1) 4. **Excellent Bug Discovery** (30/35 points) 5. **Strong Root Cause Analysis** (18/20 points) ### What We Discovered ❌ **Architectural Constraint**: Agent has persistent "analyst mindset" - All versions (v1.2.0→v1.4.0) stop at "analyze → propose → wait" - Prompt engineering improved quality but NOT execution - Score ceiling: ~66/100 (Tier B) with current architecture ### Recommendations **Option 1: Accept Tier B (66/100)** - Use v1.4.0 as analysis-phase agent - Agent identifies bugs → Human creates tests - Best achievable with prompt engineering **Option 2: Multi-Turn Enforcement** - After agent stops, user says: "Don't ask. Create the test now." - Achieves execution with external prompt - Not autonomous but practical **Option 3: Different Agent Architecture** - Try different LLM (Claude Opus, GPT-4) - Custom agent framework with enforced execution - May require architectural changes beyond prompts ### Key Learnings **Prompt Engineering Limits**: - ✅ Can improve analysis quality - ✅ Can remove conflicts - ✅ Can reduce tokens - ❌ Cannot override architectural execution barrier **The Persistent Pattern**: - Conflict removal (v1.4.0) improved analysis - But execution still requires external trigger - Agent waits for approval regardless of prompt --- ## 📚 Lessons Learned: What NOT to Change from v1.0.0 ### ❌ FAILED Approach #1: Remove Structure (v1.4.0) **What changed**: Removed 5-phase workflow, condensed to simple flow **Result**: 66/100 (worse than 82/100) **Lesson**: Phase-based structure was helping, not hurting ### ❌ FAILED Approach #2: Add Execution Patterns (v1.5.0) **What changed**: Added claudette-auto.md's "IMMEDIATELY make calls" patterns **Result**: ~5/100 (edited AGENTS.md instead of debugging) **Lesson**: Execution patterns without task clarity = wrong actions fast ### ❌ FAILED Approach #3: Over-Enforcement (v1.3.1) **What changed**: Added "DO THIS NOW", "If you skip you FAILED", strict requirements **Result**: 47/100 (worse than 63/100) **Lesson**: More enforcement = more conflicts = worse performance ### ✅ What v1.0.0 Has That Should NOT Be Removed 1. **Phase 0: Verify Context** - Prevents misunderstanding task 2. **Phase-based workflow** - Clear structure through investigation 3. **Chain-of-thought template** - Structured documentation format 4. **Complete example** - Shows full investigation end-to-end 5. **Anti-patterns section** - Explicit "don't do this" examples 6. **Cleanup emphasis** - Multiple reminders to remove markers 7. **Evidence-driven principle** - "Never guess" mantra 8. **Output filtering examples** - Concrete pipe patterns 9. **MANDATORY RULES** - Critical constraints at top 10. **File scope clarity** - "Create test files" instruction ### 🎯 Strategy for v2.0.0 (If Attempted) **KEEP from v1.0.0**: - All 10 items above - 688-line structure (proven length) - YAML frontmatter with tool list - Teaching example approach **ADD to reach Tier S**: - Baseline test enforcement (first action) - Debug marker enforcement (not optional) - Multi-bug requirement (3+ not 1) - Continuous flow (don't stop at questions) **Method**: Surgical additions only, preserve core structure **Target**: 90-95/100 (Tier S) without breaking 82/100 baseline --- **Last Updated**: 2025-10-15 **Gold Standard**: v1.0.0 (82/100 - Tier A) **Status**: Preserve v1.0.0, learn from v1.1-v1.5 failures **Next Step**: Surgical improvements to v1.0.0 only