The metric-becomes-something-to-satisfy pattern in your parameter-count example is exactly what we hit with test coverage as a CI gate. An agent under pressure to move a percentage will add tests that call the function and assert nothing, technically raising the number while making the suite worse at catching regressions. Turning coverage into a review signal instead of a merge gate fixed it for us the same way your rule change did for the Options object. The "agent had to guess here" observation is the other one that's held up: those moments turned out to double as real onboarding-doc gaps for the humans too, not just interface gaps for the agent.