Skip to content

claude-config(audit-instructions): deferred Opus 5 guide candidates — vision-workaround re-validation and late-window defensive-scaffolding rows #1996

Description

@kyle-sexton

What

The opus-5-prompting-interview workstream (#1699) operationalized the Opus 5 prompting guide's correction-shaped directives (I8-a/b/c, I17 family, I21). Two candidate audit rows raised by the corpus digests were not built, and the interview's merged triage (.work/opus-5-prompting-interview/validation/) is no longer on local disk, so whether they were consciously rejected or simply not picked is unconfirmed. Recording both as deferred-with-trigger rather than letting them vanish:

  1. Vision-workaround re-validation (guide, "Capability improvements" → Vision): "Re-validate any prompt-side vision workarounds you tuned for prior models; they may no longer be needed." Digest 02-capabilities.md proposed a re-validation pass / detection of prior-model vision scaffolding (transcribe-first scaffolds, single-shot image-read compensations). No catalog row covers it; I8 base (prior-model workarounds) is scoped fable-5, so an opus-5 target skips it. A 2026-08-08 sweep found no such scaffolding in this repo, so the value is consumer-facing only.
  2. Late-window defensive scaffolding (guide, "Capability improvements" → Long-context work): instruction following "stay[s] consistent throughout the window" on Opus 5, which the digest read as an argument against late-window re-anchoring prompts / instruction repetition / degradation-justified pre-emptive compaction. Candidate row: flag scaffolding justified on window-degradation grounds (cost-ground justifications stay). Detection is weak (justification prose, not a literal), so it would be behavioral, opus-5-scoped.

Why deferred, not built

Both are behavioral, weakly detectable, and unproven in value; per ADR-0006's promotion-gate posture, each would enter as a model-scoped row with fixtures. Neither has an attested operative instance in this repo (measured 2026-08-08).

Triggers

  • A consumer repo surfaces an actual instance of either shape (evidence of value).
  • A second model guide states either claim (promotion-gate movement per reference/criteria.md "Model scoping").
  • The Opus 5 guide's raw-.md body changes (catalog-wide recheck trigger fires anyway; MD5 baseline 8579d63fc9f793784b8c56320fd74e71, 11,225 bytes, byte-identical 2026-07-25 → 2026-08-08).
  • The interview triage resurfaces (e.g. from the knowledge-corpus slice or a session transcript) showing an explicit rejection — then close this as decided.

Related

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions