Bryce Darling

Assigning a review owner and date to every learned rule is a good idea. Automatic expiration is too blunt for some safeguards, but an owner and review date make someone responsible for asking whether the architecture still justifies the rule.

I don't optimize for keeping the suite small. I'm biased because I've been doing TDD for two decades, but I think automated testing matters more when agents can produce more code than a person can realistically inspect line by line. I treat test code as production code. Mindrealm reviews the tests too: weak assertions, mock abuse, flaky tests, state leaks, and public functions or methods with no corresponding test. If an agent spends time satisfying a valid test, that's part of the task. If a test no longer protects behavior we care about, I decide whether it gets fixed or deleted. For a prototype or proof of concept, who cares. Ship it without tests. If a team has to maintain it, the test suite is part of the product.

Prompt debt is a good name for it. What have you found works for you in your setup?

Exactly, a broad rule can do more damage than the original mistake because it keeps blocking valid cases after that. Oof

Do you use a line/character count ceiling in your own config? What did you land on?

Hey, good to see you again. Glad this one hit.

Yeah, the code review loop is what's worked for me. What are you using to review the fixes in your own setup: /review, by hand, or something else? Curious what's working for you.

What a great question. It sent me back into the code to verify the whole path. Severity is locked into the rule, so the agent can't demote a blocking finding just to finish. It can propose a suppression, but now it can't approve its own exception. I verified that for both blocking severity levels. The useful rule I added is that the agent whose work is being gated can't also be the final authority on whether the suppression gate applies. You improved the system. Thank you, Kartik

Append-only in normal operation, yes. Immutable against an agent with the same shell access, no. That distinction is why I didn’t make the log the completion authority. The history records which transition the harness accepted. It can't tell me whether the work earned "done," so the guard now treats completed as a claim. A separate read-only reviewer checks the original task against the current repository state and issues a certificate bound to both. Redefine the task, change the artifact, replay stale evidence, or delete an uncertified task, and the gate blocks. The pattern I landed on is append-only event history plus independent certification of the work.

Already starred it. The move from LLM reviewing LLM to deterministic runtime checks is exactly the right call. I came to the same conclusion on my side. Going to give it a real run in Claude this week. How do you handle false positives on the checks?