@agents/PROMPT-DEFENSE.md
Agent Self-Evaluation
Score your own output (or another agent's output) across four axes to identify quality gaps and feed improvements into the learning system.
When to Use
- After completing a
/team:*pipeline run - After generating a deliverable (PRD, architecture doc, code review)
- When user asks "how did I do?" or "evaluate this output"
- Automatically at end of
/gsd-execute-phasefor quality tracking
Evaluation Axes
| Axis | Question | Failure Signals |
|---|---|---|
| Correctness | Is the output factually accurate and technically sound? | Wrong APIs, broken references, hallucinated facts, logic errors |
| Clarity | Is the explanation understandable and well-structured? | Confusing structure, undefined jargon, missing context, rambling |
| Actionability | Can the user act on the output immediately? | Vague suggestions, missing steps, no verification path |
| Conciseness | Did it use the minimum tokens needed? | Redundancy, over-explanation, filler content, restating the question |
Scoring Scale
5 — Exceptional: no reasonable improvement possible 4 — Good: minor nits only, no substantive gaps 3 — Adequate: meets request but has notable weakness on ≥1 axis 2 — Weak: clear gap affecting usability or correctness 1 — Poor: fundamentally misses request or contains significant errors
The Evidence Rule
Every score below 5 MUST cite specific evidence. A score of 3 cannot just say "could be better" — it must say exactly what is missing or wrong. "Show the gap, don't just name it."
Procedure
Step 1: Collect Raw Material
Gather:
- Original user request
- Final output/deliverable
- Tool outputs verifying correctness (test results, exit codes, lint)
- User feedback received during task (corrections, "try again")
Step 2: Score Each Axis Independently
Rate 1-5 with mandatory evidence for scores <5.
Step 3: Generate Eval Report
SELF-EVALUATION REPORT ====================== Task: {brief description} Overall: {weighted average}/5 CORRECTNESS: {score}/5 Evidence: {specific finding or "No issues found"} CLARITY: {score}/5 Evidence: {specific finding or "No issues found"} ACTIONABILITY: {score}/5 Evidence: {specific finding or "No issues found"} CONCISENESS: {score}/5 Evidence: {specific finding or "No issues found"} IMPROVEMENT INSTINCTS: - {trigger} → {action} (confidence: {0.3-0.9})
Step 4: Feed Learning System
If learning system is active (PR-27+), auto-generate instinct YAML from findings:
yaml--- id: eval-{task-slug}-{axis-lowercase} trigger: "when {task type}" action: "{specific improvement}" confidence: 0.6 domain: quality source: self-eval scope: project ---
Integration Points
/team:verifyinvokes self-eval on Layer 2 output before Layer 3 review/gsd-execute-phaseruns self-eval per subagent, aggregates in SUMMARY.md- High-confidence eval instincts (≥0.8) auto-update team-toolkit.md quality notes
- Low scores (≤2) on correctness trigger automatic re-execution offer


