dillenberg/ECC
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/Jeuners/ECC.git synced 2026-09-09 15:02:30 +02:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

fix: address final lint blockers for agent self-evaluation

Browse source 
- Replace U+274C cross-mark examples with ASCII FAIL: prefixes
- Ensure agent-evaluator markdown ends with trailing newline
- Replace markdown placeholder underscores with bracketed placeholders to satisfy markdownlint MD037
This commit is contained in:
Hawthorn 2026-06-11 17:58:57 +05:30
parent 1e679bcb47
commit 149be89d39
4 changed files with 8 additions and 8 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

10
skills/agent-self-evaluation/SKILL.md
View file

@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ If any axis scored 3 or below:
1. State what you would do differently
2. If the gap is fixable in < 30 seconds (missing link, unclear phrasing), fix it now
3. If the gap requires rework, flag it explicitly: "This axis scored __ because __. Re-running with __ would likely raise it to __."
3. If the gap requires rework, flag it explicitly: "This axis scored [reason] because [evidence]. Re-running with [specific fix] would likely raise it to [score]."
## Code Examples
@ -134,7 +134,7 @@ Overall: 2.8 — Wrong library used. Needs httpx rewrite.
### "Everything is a 5"
```
❌ Accuracy: 5 — All good.
FAIL: Accuracy: 5 — All good.
Completeness: 5 — Everything covered.
Clarity: 5 — Clear.
```
@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ No evidence cited. This is self-congratulation, not evaluation. A real 5 require
### Over-penalizing for scope creep
```
❌ Completeness: 2 — Didn't handle WebSocket connections or
FAIL: Completeness: 2 — Didn't handle WebSocket connections or
gRPC streaming (user didn't ask for these)
```
@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ Only evaluate against what the user actually requested, not what you could have
### Using the evaluation to re-litigate
```
❌ "As I said earlier, this approach is wrong. Score: 1"
FAIL: "As I said earlier, this approach is wrong. Score: 1"
```
The evaluation is about the delivered output, not about re-arguing design decisions that were already made. If the approach was wrong, that should have been caught before delivery.
@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ The evaluation is about the delivered output, not about re-arguing design decisi
### Mixing personal preference with objective gaps
```
❌ "Score: 3. I don't like Python decorators."
FAIL: "Score: 3. I don't like Python decorators."
```
"Don't like" is not evidence. Cite a concrete readability, testability, or correctness concern, or leave the score at 4+.