Deleting the "double-check your answer" lines is the tip I would act on first. Those prompts were written for models that under-verified; on a model that already self-verifies they read as an instruction to keep going, which is where a chunk of the over-engineering you describe comes from. Same experience on subagent sprawl: capping how many it may spawn changed our bill more than any effort-level setting did. One place I would soften the verdict: 55.2% vs 61.1% recall makes it sound unfit for code review, but a precision-heavy reviewer works well as the second voice in an ensemble where a cheaper high-recall pass goes first. As the only safety net, agreed, no.
Skillselion
The directory of Claude Code, Codex and Cursor extensions worth installing, ranked by real installs. Independent, not affiliated with Anthro
Deleting the "double-check your answer" lines is the tip I would act on first. Those prompts were written for models that under-verified; on a model that already self-verifies they read as an instruction to keep going, which is where a chunk of the over-engineering you describe comes from. Same experience on subagent sprawl: capping how many it may spawn changed our bill more than any effort-level setting did. One place I would soften the verdict: 55.2% vs 61.1% recall makes it sound unfit for code review, but a precision-heavy reviewer works well as the second voice in an ensemble where a cheaper high-recall pass goes first. As the only safety net, agreed, no.