Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
PR #479 + minimal review_lever to avoid template lock - #482
Closed
neoneye wants to merge 1 commit into
Closed
Conversation
Same as PR #479 (verbatim numbers, positive framing, consistent targets) but with one tweak: strip review_lever field description to bare minimum "Critical review of this lever (one sentence, 20-40 words)" with no structural phrase that models can copy as a template. PR #479's "the proposed options collectively do not resolve" caused qwen3-30b to lock (0→7/20) and worsened gpt-oss-20b (10/17→15/17). This version removes ALL copyable sentence structures from review_lever and lets the section 4 examples teach the desired style instead. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
neoneye
commented
Apr 1, 2026
MemberAuthor
Self-improve iteration — analysis 76Verdict: CONDITIONAL Template lock BROKEN — all three models fixed:
The key insight: Minimal field description New issues (different from template lock):
This is the strongest result across all 8 iterations. The template lock was the #1 issue from analysis 40 and it's resolved. |
neoneye
commented
Apr 1, 2026
MemberAuthor
Closing — template lock fixed but haiku fabricated numbers regressed +8.3pp and llama3.1 consequence parroting in later calls. Not convincingly better overall. |
neoneye added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 1, 2026
Remove "identify the primary trade-off this lever introduces, then
state the specific gap the three options leave unaddressed" from two
locations: the Pydantic field description and the system prompt
section 4 preamble. Replace with minimal word-count guidance.
This phrase caused 85% template lock in haiku reviews ("All three
options X, but none address Y"). Proven fix from analysis 76 (#482).
All other field descriptions, system prompt sections, and prohibitions
unchanged from baseline (PR #358).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>4 tasks
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Same as PR #479 but with one tweak to fix its biggest regression:
The tweak: Strip
review_leverfield description to"Critical review of this lever (one sentence, 20–40 words)."— no structural phrase. Section 4 preamble becomes just"A one-sentence critical review. Examples:". The three existing examples teach the style without a copyable template.Why: PR #479's
"the proposed options collectively do not resolve"caused qwen3-30b to lock (0→7/20) and worsened gpt-oss-20b (10/17→15/17). Every structural phrase becomes a fill-in-the-blank template for small models.From #479 (unchanged): verbatim numbers on consequences+options, positive framing, consistent 2-3 sentence targets, section 5 prohibition.
Test plan
🤖 Generated with Claude Code