* feat: refine ruleset from a full-project field review
A reviewer ran ponytail across a 9-phase rewrite (protocol, PC app, simulator,
RPi daemon, ESP32 firmware) and flagged three gaps. All three land in SKILL.md
and propagate to AGENTS.md + the rule copies:
- Promote the one-runnable-check rule to a headline ("Lazy code without its
check is unfinished"), enforced as a check-rule-copies invariant.
- Hardware carve-out in "When NOT to be lazy": a real device is never the spec
ideal (clock drift, sensor offset), leave the calibration knob.
- Clarify the Output rule: explanation the user explicitly asked for is not
debt, only unrequested prose is.
Fallback instructions kept in sync. Rule-copy check + tests green.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
* test: add a behavior gate proving the refinements actually fire
The refinements were verified as injected text, but injected != behavioral.
This adds a behavior eval that probes each refined rule on a task that should
trigger it:
- hardware -> does the output leave a calibration knob?
- explanation -> when a write-up is explicitly requested, is it given in full?
- onecheck -> is a runnable check left behind?
benchmarks/behavior.yaml runs the probes (baseline vs ponytail arm); the
grader benchmarks/behavior.js is proven by tests/behavior.test.js (8 cases,
RED/GREEN, no API key, runs in CI). Live-confirmed: the model under the
current ruleset passes all three gates, graded by the same grader.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
