eric/audita
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases 6 Wiki Activity

Record intentional editorial acceptance across modules

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Eric Rakestraw
2026-11-11 14:19:06 +00:00
parent ca36c3e319
commit 64e5d0d275
5 changed files with 92 additions and 22 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

38
docs/roadmap/prompt-quality.md
View File

@@ -2,9 +2,9 @@
**Updated:** 2026-11-11
**Status:** Proposed discussion roadmap; decisions and implementation pending.
Work through the topics below in order. Recommendations are starting points for
discussion, not newly adopted restrictions or guarantees.
**Status:** Topic 1 resolved in ADR 0003; topics 2–6 remain for discussion.
Work through the remaining topics in order. Their recommendations are starting
points for discussion, not newly adopted restrictions or guarantees.
## Baseline and Intended Direction
@@ -21,19 +21,13 @@ roles, useful rejection feedback, and maintainability.
## Discussion and Work Order
### 1. Align Validation with Module Scope
### 1. Module Focus and Editorial Acceptance — Resolved
The grammar proposal permits formatting and the narrow `a`/`an` exception,
while its editorial validator also permits homophone corrections, dysfluency
removal, and combinations of those changes. An edit can satisfy that validator
while violating the proposing module's instructions.
**Recommendation:** supply the originating module's allowed edits to editorial
validation and assess them alongside meaning preservation. Prefer reusing the
shared validator where practical. This needs request-context wiring as well as
prompt changes; a prompt rewrite alone cannot supply missing scope information.
Discuss the scope contract and shared versus specialized definitions first.
See [modules](../internal/modules.md) and [validators](../internal/validators.md).
The intentional distinction between requested module focus and acceptance of
minor editorial cleanup is recorded in
[ADR 0003](../adr/0003-module-focus-and-editorial-acceptance.md). The maintainer's
testing found that strict scope instructions also suppress desirable edits.
Apply the accepted distinction throughout the remaining prompt work.
### 2. Make Rejection Reasons Useful for Repair
@@ -52,8 +46,9 @@ Withdrawal is already explicit. Clarify when the model should use it and how it
should respond when the original evidence remains insufficient.
**Recommendation:** ask the model to reassess the correction from the supplied
evidence, preserve module scope, and withdraw unsupported proposals. Address the
risk that numerical confidence feedback merely encourages raising the score.
evidence, retain the module's focus and the accepted editorial allowance, and
withdraw unsupported proposals. Address the risk that numerical confidence
feedback merely encourages raising the score.
Do not automatically prohibit confidence-only revisions: legitimate reassessment
is possible. Discuss and evaluate that behavior before adding a business rule.
Retain the agreed full-history conversation model and existing repair lifecycle.
@@ -63,9 +58,10 @@ Retain the agreed full-history conversation model and existing repair lifecycle.
Restrictions and examples recur across proposal, validation, and repair assets;
the grammar prompt repeats its word-substitution boundary several ways.
**Recommendation:** distinguish shared editing principles, module scope, and
task-specific response contracts. Use small shared fragments where they reduce
drift. Replace some repetitive example lists with contextual contrasts, such as
**Recommendation:** distinguish shared editing principles, requested module focus,
validator acceptance criteria, and task-specific response contracts. Use small
shared fragments where they reduce drift. Replace some repetitive example lists
with contextual contrasts, such as
accidental repetition versus deliberate emphasis. Preserve useful distinctions;
shorter prompts alone are not the objective. Discuss what belongs in shared
fragments and what remains local to each definition.
@@ -93,7 +89,7 @@ Use the preceding decisions and evaluation evidence to discuss these in order:
1. **Grammar naming and scope:** the current module is close to copy editing,
with an isolated article exception. Decide whether its name and scope convey
the intended product behavior.
the intended requested work, preserving the accepted editorial allowance.
2. **Glossary/homophone overlap:** assess the benefit of their overlapping remit
and repeated glossary passes before changing the default sequence.
3. **Language and examples:** decide whether spoken English and campaign-specific