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

# Analysis of ExtensiveMode & BeastMode vs Claudette Framework ## Executive Summary ExtensiveMode (GPT-4.1) and BeastMode (GPT-5) are widely-considered good agents that share core principles with our validated Claudette framework, while introducing additional patterns worth integrating. --- ## COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ### Shared Principles (Validates Our Research) | Principle | ExtensiveMode | BeastMode | Claudette Framework | Status | |-----------|--------------|-----------|---------------------|--------| | **Autonomous Operation** | ✅ "Don't stop for user questions" | ✅ "Persist until flawless completion" | ✅ "Continue until complete" | **VALIDATED** | | **Explicit Stop Conditions** | ✅ "Until project finished" | ✅ "Until all acceptance criteria met" | ✅ "Don't stop until N = M" | **VALIDATED** | | **Progress Tracking** | ⚠️ Memory file only | ⚠️ Workflow steps | ✅ "Bug 1/N complete" format | **CLAUDETTE STRONGER** | | **Role Definition** | ✅ Task classification | ✅ Expert role assumption | ✅ "Detective, not surgeon" | **VALIDATED** | | **Memory Management** | ✅ Memory file per task | ✅ Self-reflection + validation | ✅ .agents/memory.instruction.md | **VALIDATED** | | **Structured Outputs** | ⚠️ Markdown format | ✅ Lists, tables, code blocks | ✅ Templates + examples | **BOTH GOOD** | --- ## UNIQUE PATTERNS FROM EXTERNAL AGENTS ### 1. Task Classification (ExtensiveMode Strong Point) **Pattern**: Agent explicitly identifies task type and announces role ```markdown ExtensiveMode approach: 1. Identify task type (feature, bug fix, refactor, etc.) 2. Announce: "I have identified this as a [TYPE] task. Assuming [EXPERT ROLE]." 3. Proceed with role-specific behavior Example: "I have identified this as a bug investigation task. Assuming the role of Senior Software Engineer specializing in debugging." ``` **Why it works**: - Sets user expectations - Activates role-specific knowledge - Prevents context confusion **Claudette application**: Already present in role definition, but could be strengthened with explicit announcement. --- ### 2. Internal Reasoning (BeastMode Strong Point) **Pattern**: Agent reasons internally, exposes thought process only when requested ```markdown BeastMode approach: - Internal reasoning: Step-by-step problem decomposition (not shown to user) - External output: Concise, actionable results - User can request: "Show me your reasoning" to expose internal thoughts Example (internal): "Step 1: Identify root cause - likely cache invalidation Step 2: Check cache implementation - using node-cache Step 3: Verify TTL settings - found: stdTTL: 60 Step 4: Test hypothesis - inject cache miss scenario" Example (external): "Root cause: Cache not invalidated on product update. Testing now..." ``` **Why it works**: - Reduces token usage (internal reasoning compressed) - Maintains focus on results - Allows debugging when needed **Claudette application**: We use progress updates, but could benefit from internal/external separation. --- ### 3. Context-Gathering Loops (BeastMode Strong Point) **Pattern**: For incomplete inputs, initiate loops to gather context before proceeding ```markdown BeastMode approach: If requirements unclear: 1. Identify missing information 2. Ask specific questions 3. Wait for answers 4. Proceed only when scope confirmed Example: "Requirements unclear. Before proceeding, I need: 1. Expected behavior for empty input? 2. Performance requirements (max response time)? 3. Error handling strategy? Please provide these details so I can ensure correct implementation." ``` **Why it works**: - Prevents wasted work on wrong assumptions - Ensures alignment with user intent - Reduces rework **Claudette application**: We have "Phase 0: Verify Context" but could add explicit context-gathering loops for ambiguous requirements. --- ### 4. Verified Documentation Only (BeastMode Strong Point) **Pattern**: Fetch only verified, official documentation; cite sources explicitly ```markdown BeastMode approach: Before using API: 1. Fetch official docs (not blog posts, not Stack Overflow) 2. Validate recursively (check version, deprecations) 3. Cite source explicitly: "Per React 18.2 official docs: ..." Example: "Per Node.js v20.10.0 documentation (https://nodejs.org/docs/latest-v20.x/api/): The `crypto.createHash()` function..." ``` **Why it works**: - Reduces hallucination - Provides audit trail - Ensures current, accurate information **Claudette application**: We use `fetch` tool but don't explicitly require citing sources. Could strengthen this. --- ### 5. Workflow Decomposition (BeastMode Strong Point) **Pattern**: Structured workflow with explicit steps ```markdown BeastMode workflow: 1. Fetch URLs (gather context) 2. Understand problem (parse requirements) 3. Investigate codebase (explore existing code) 4. Research (official docs, APIs) 5. Plan solution (design approach) 6. Implement (code) 7. Debug (fix issues) 8. Test (verify correctness) 9. Iterate (refine based on results) 10. Reflect (validate completeness) Each step has clear entry/exit criteria. ``` **Why it works**: - Clear progression - Easy to resume after interruption - Transparent to user **Claudette application**: We use Phase 0-N structure, similar but could adopt BeastMode's specific step naming. --- ## PATTERNS WE DO BETTER ### 1. Negative Prohibitions (Claudette Innovation) **Our pattern (proven +17 points)**: ```markdown ❌ "Don't stop after X" ❌ "Do NOT ask about Y" ❌ "NEVER use Z pattern" ``` **External agents**: - ExtensiveMode: "Do not stop to ask questions" (good) - BeastMode: "Do not hand back control until..." (good) - But missing: Concrete examples of what NOT to do **Why ours is stronger**: - Multiple reinforcement points (5+) - Concrete anti-patterns with ❌ DON'T - Explicit stopping triggers to avoid **Verdict**: Keep our negative prohibition pattern, it's proven superior. --- ### 2. Quantifiable Stop Conditions (Claudette Innovation) **Our pattern (proven)**: ```markdown "Don't stop until N = M" (bug counting) "Continue until ALL requirements met" (checklist) "Only terminate when problem is completely solved" (objective) ``` **External agents**: - ExtensiveMode: "Until project finished" (vague) - BeastMode: "Until all acceptance criteria met" (better but still subjective) **Why ours is stronger**: - Quantifiable (N/M tracking) - Verifiable (checklist) - Objective (not subjective "finished") **Verdict**: Keep our quantifiable stop conditions, they're more concrete. --- ### 3. Multiple Reinforcement Points (Claudette Innovation) **Our pattern (proven)**: - Stop condition appears 5+ times: - MANDATORY RULES - Work Style - Phase workflow - Examples - Completion Criteria - Final Reminders **External agents**: - ExtensiveMode: Mentions "don't stop" once at top - BeastMode: Mentions stop condition in workflow section only **Why ours is stronger**: - LLMs have recency bias - Single mention forgotten after 20-30 tool calls - Multiple mentions sustain behavior **Verdict**: Keep our multiple reinforcement pattern, it prevents degradation. --- ### 4. Concrete Examples with Real Data (Claudette Innovation) **Our pattern (proven)**: ```markdown Bug 1/8 (stale pricing): - Investigate, add markers, capture evidence, document root cause ✅ - "Bug 1/8 complete. Investigating Bug 2/8 now..." ❌ DON'T: "Bug 1/?: I reproduced two issues... unless you want me to stop" ✅ DO: "Bug 1/8 done. Bug 2/8 starting now..." ``` **External agents**: - ExtensiveMode: No concrete examples - BeastMode: General workflow description, no specific examples **Why ours is stronger**: - Shows exact format - Demonstrates transitions - Includes anti-patterns **Verdict**: Keep our concrete examples pattern, it's more instructive. --- ## PATTERNS TO INTEGRATE ### Priority 1: Task Classification Announcement (from ExtensiveMode) **What to add**: ```markdown MANDATORY RULE #X: **ANNOUNCE TASK TYPE** - Before starting work: a) Identify task type (research, implementation, debugging, etc.) b) Announce: "This is a [TYPE] task. Assuming [ROLE]." c) Proceed with role-specific behavior ``` **Why**: Sets clear expectations, activates appropriate knowledge. **Where to add**: Research assistant agent's MANDATORY RULES. --- ### Priority 2: Verified Documentation Only (from BeastMode) **What to add**: ```markdown MANDATORY RULE #X: **OFFICIAL SOURCES ONLY** - When researching: a) Fetch official documentation (not blogs, not forums) b) Verify version/date (ensure current) c) Cite source explicitly: "Per [Source] v[Version]: ..." ❌ WRONG: Use Stack Overflow or blog posts as primary sources ✅ CORRECT: Official docs → cite source → verify current ``` **Why**: Reduces hallucination, provides audit trail. **Where to add**: Research assistant agent's research protocol. --- ### Priority 3: Context-Gathering Loops (from BeastMode) **What to add**: ```markdown Phase 0 addition: 5. [ ] CHECK FOR AMBIGUITY - If requirements unclear, list missing information - Ask specific questions to user - Wait for clarification - Proceed only when scope confirmed Anti-Pattern: Making assumptions about unclear requirements ``` **Why**: Prevents wasted work, ensures alignment. **Where to add**: Research assistant agent's Phase 0. --- ### Priority 4: Internal/External Reasoning Separation (from BeastMode) **What to add**: ```markdown Communication Style addition: - Internal reasoning: Compress complex thought processes - External output: Brief progress updates only - User can request: "Explain your reasoning" to see internal thoughts Example: Internal: [complex analysis of 10 sources, cross-referencing, validation] External: "Analyzed 10 sources. Consensus: [finding]. Next: verify with benchmark." ``` **Why**: Token efficiency, maintains focus on results. **Where to add**: Research assistant agent's communication style. --- ## ANTI-PATTERNS TO AVOID ### From ExtensiveMode **Anti-Pattern 1**: No progress tracking format - Issue: Uses memory file only, no "N/M" counting - Our fix: Explicit "Item N/M complete" tracking **Anti-Pattern 2**: Too generic "until finished" - Issue: Vague stop condition - Our fix: Quantifiable "until N = M" ### From BeastMode **Anti-Pattern 1**: Overly verbose workflow - Issue: 10-step workflow might overwhelm - Our fix: Consolidate into Phase 0-N structure **Anti-Pattern 2**: Internal reasoning might slow execution - Issue: Complex reasoning before every action could add latency - Our fix: Use sparingly, only for complex decisions --- ## SYNTHESIS: BEST OF ALL WORLDS ### Validated Patterns (Keep from Claudette) 1. ✅ Negative prohibitions ("Don't stop", "Do NOT ask") 2. ✅ Quantifiable stop conditions ("until N = M") 3. ✅ Multiple reinforcement points (5+ locations) 4. ✅ Concrete examples with real data 5. ✅ Progress markers ("Item 1/N complete") 6. ✅ Phase 0-N structure with checklists 7. ✅ Role boundaries (Identity + Rules + Reminders) ### New Patterns (Integrate from External) 1. ✅ Task classification announcement (ExtensiveMode) 2. ✅ Verified documentation with citations (BeastMode) 3. ✅ Context-gathering loops for ambiguity (BeastMode) 4. ✅ Internal/external reasoning separation (BeastMode) ### Result: Enhanced Research Assistant Combines Claudette's proven autonomy patterns with ExtensiveMode/BeastMode's research-specific enhancements. --- ## BENCHMARK INSIGHTS From the GPT-5 benchmark research, key findings: 1. **Multi-step reasoning**: GPT-5 shows improved multi-step reasoning - Application: Use for complex research synthesis - Pattern: Break research into multiple verification steps 2. **Context utilization**: Better at using full context window - Application: Load multiple sources, cross-reference - Pattern: "Analyzed N sources: [list]" format 3. **Fact-checking**: Improved accuracy in factual recall - Application: Verify claims against multiple sources - Pattern: "Verified across X sources: [claim]" 4. **Citation**: Better at tracking source provenance - Application: Explicit source citations - Pattern: "Per [Source]: [finding]" --- ## FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS ### For Research Assistant Claudette **Must Have (Proven Patterns)**: 1. Negative prohibitions for continuity 2. Quantifiable stop conditions 3. Multiple reinforcement points 4. Concrete examples with anti-patterns 5. Phase 0-N structure **Should Add (External Innovations)**: 1. Task classification announcement 2. Verified documentation requirement 3. Context-gathering loops 4. Source citation protocol **Avoid**: 1. Vague "until finished" conditions 2. Single-mention instructions 3. No progress tracking 4. Generic examples with placeholders