# Evaluation Report: do-in-parallel Command

---
VOTE: Solution A
SCORES:
  Solution A: 4.15/5.0
  Solution B: 3.95/5.0
  Solution C: 3.75/5.0
CRITERIA:
 - Completeness: 4.20/5.0
 - Correctness: 4.10/5.0
 - Design Quality: 4.00/5.0
 - Usability: 3.90/5.0
 - Clarity: 4.05/5.0
---

## Executive Summary

Solution A provides the most comprehensive and well-structured implementation of the `/do-in-parallel` command, with superior requirements coverage, clearer parallel dispatch instructions, and better theoretical grounding. Solution B offers good model selection flexibility (per-target variation) but has weaker parallel dispatch clarity. Solution C provides solid foundational elements but lacks completeness in several key areas.

- **Artifact**:
  - Solution A: `plugins/sadd/commands/do-in-parallel.a.md`
  - Solution B: `plugins/sadd/commands/do-in-parallel.b.md`
  - Solution C: `plugins/sadd/commands/do-in-parallel.c.md`
- **Overall Score**: See individual scores above
- **Verdict**: Solution A - GOOD, Solution B - ACCEPTABLE, Solution C - ACCEPTABLE
- **Threshold**: 3.5/5.0
- **Result**: ALL PASS, Solution A RECOMMENDED

---

## Detailed Analysis

### 1. Completeness (Weight: 0.25)

**Requirement Checklist:**
1. Accept task description and optional file/target list
2. Intelligent model selection (Opus default, Specialized if exists, Sonnet for long tasks, Haiku for easy)
3. Generate prompts with Zero-shot CoT at beginning
4. Generate prompts with Self-critique at end
5. Launch multiple agents in parallel using Task tool
6. Collect and summarize results

#### Solution A Analysis

**Evidence Found:**

1. **Task/target acceptance:** Lines 28-41 explicitly define parsing patterns:
   ```
   Input patterns:
   1. --files "src/a.ts,src/b.ts,src/c.ts"    → File-based targets
   2. --targets "UserService,OrderService"    → Named targets
   3. Infer from task description             → Parse file paths from task
   ```
   Argument-hint (line 3): `Task description [--files "file1.ts,file2.ts,..."] [--targets "target1,target2,..."] [--model opus|sonnet|haiku] [--output <path>]`

2. **Model selection:** Lines 84-108 provide complete decision tree:
   ```
   Is EACH target's task COMPLEX (architecture, novel problem, critical decision)?
   +-- YES --> Use Opus for ALL agents
   +-- NO --> Is task SIMPLE and MECHANICAL (rename, format, extract)?
              +-- YES --> Use Haiku for ALL agents
              +-- NO --> Is output LARGE but task not complex?
                         +-- YES --> Use Sonnet for ALL agents
                         +-- NO --> Use Opus for ALL agents (default)
   ```

3. **Specialized agent selection:** Lines 110-130 cover specialized agents (developer, security-auditor, tech-writer, etc.)

4. **Zero-shot CoT:** Lines 136-161 - complete prefix with 4-step reasoning approach

5. **Self-critique suffix:** Lines 187-215 - mandatory verification with table format

6. **Parallel dispatch:** Lines 217-231 explicitly state:
   ```
   **Parallel dispatch is CRITICAL:**
   - Do NOT wait for one agent to complete before starting another
   - Launch ALL agents in a single batch
   - Task tool handles parallelization automatically
   ```

7. **Result collection:** Lines 233-264 provide detailed summary template

**Score for Solution A:** 4.5/5

#### Solution B Analysis

**Evidence Found:**

1. **Task/target acceptance:** Lines 33-45 provide strategy table but less structured than A:
   ```markdown
   | Input Pattern | Strategy | Example |
   |---------------|----------|---------|
   | Explicit file list | Use as-is | `api/users.ts api/posts.ts` |
   | Glob pattern | Expand to files | `src/utils/*.ts` |
   ```
   No explicit command-line flags defined in argument-hint (line 3): `Task description with targets`

2. **Model selection:** Lines 82-109 provide matrix and decision tree - comparable to A

3. **Specialized agent:** Lines 113-128 covered but marked "Optional" - weaker guidance than A

4. **Zero-shot CoT:** Lines 134-161 - complete

5. **Self-critique:** Lines 191-245 - comprehensive with 5-question framework

6. **Parallel dispatch:** Lines 248-269 cover parallelization but less emphatic:
   ```
   **Parallelization guidelines:**
   - All tasks are independent - launch simultaneously
   ```
   Missing the explicit "CRITICAL" emphasis A has.

7. **Result collection:** Lines 271-316 - complete summary format

**Score for Solution B:** 4.2/5

#### Solution C Analysis

**Evidence Found:**

1. **Task/target acceptance:** Lines 31-79 provide detailed input patterns - good coverage

2. **Model selection:** Lines 114-164 provide matrix but simpler than A/B

3. **Specialized agent:** Lines 166-189 covered with domain detection table

4. **Zero-shot CoT:** Lines 196-221 - present but shorter than A/B

5. **Self-critique:** Lines 250-283 - present but simpler verification questions, less structured

6. **Parallel dispatch:** Lines 285-333 - BEST explicit parallel example:
   ```markdown
   **CRITICAL: Parallel Dispatch Pattern**
   Launch ALL tasks in the SAME response. Do not wait for results between dispatches:
   ```
   With explicit code example showing 3 parallel tasks

7. **Result collection:** Lines 335-375 - adequate template

8. **MISSING:** No output path argument in argument-hint. Less comprehensive examples (only 4 vs 5 in A).

**Score for Solution C:** 3.9/5

**Criterion Total (weighted):**
- Solution A: 4.5 * 0.25 = 1.125
- Solution B: 4.2 * 0.25 = 1.050
- Solution C: 3.9 * 0.25 = 0.975

---

### 2. Correctness (Weight: 0.25)

Will the solutions work correctly with Claude Code Task tool?

#### Solution A Analysis

**Evidence Found:**

1. **Task tool usage:** Line 221-227:
   ```
   For each target in targets:
     Use Task tool:
     - description: "Parallel task: {target_name} - {brief task summary}"
     - prompt: {constructed prompt with CoT prefix + target-specific body + critique suffix}
     - model: {selected model - same for all}
   ```
   This correctly describes Task tool parameters.

2. **Parallel dispatch correctness:** Lines 229-231 correctly state that all agents should be launched simultaneously in one batch.

3. **Model parameter format:** Uses lowercase `opus`, `sonnet`, `haiku` - consistent with reference commands (`launch-sub-agent.md` line 228)

4. **Prompt structure:** Correctly orders components (CoT first, task body, critique last)

5. **Independence validation:** Line 73-76 correctly checks for task independence before parallelization

**Issues:**
- None identified - solution follows established patterns

**Score for Solution A:** 4.3/5

#### Solution B Analysis

**Evidence Found:**

1. **Task tool usage:** Lines 250-258:
   ```
   For each target in targets:
     Use Task tool:
       - description: "Parallel task: {brief task} on {target}"
       - prompt: {constructed prompt with CoT + task + critique}
       - model: {selected model}
   ```

2. **Model variation per target:** Lines 111 and 403-419 allow different models per target:
   ```
   **Model selection:**
   - `algorithm.ts`: High complexity (core algorithm optimization) -> Opus
   - `settings.ts`: Low complexity (config file) -> Haiku
   ```
   This is more flexible but could be confusing for users. It deviates from Solution A's "same model for all targets" approach.

3. **Parallel dispatch:** Lines 263-264 correctly state:
   ```
   - All tasks are independent - launch simultaneously
   - Each sub-agent works on its assigned target only
   ```

**Issues:**
- The mixed-model approach (Example 4, lines 403-419) could lead to inconsistent results across targets
- Less explicit about parallel batch dispatch compared to A

**Score for Solution B:** 4.0/5

#### Solution C Analysis

**Evidence Found:**

1. **Task tool usage:** Lines 290-297:
   ```markdown
   Task tool invocation:
   - description: Brief summary for tracking
   - prompt: Complete prompt with CoT prefix + task body + verification suffix
   - model: Selected model string (opus/sonnet/haiku)
   ```

2. **Explicit parallel example:** Lines 303-324 provide the most explicit code-like example:
   ```markdown
   [Task 1]
   Use Task tool:
     description: "Parallel: add error handling to utils/format.ts"
     prompt: [CoT prefix + task for format.ts + verification suffix]
     model: haiku

   [Task 2]
   Use Task tool:
     description: "Parallel: add error handling to utils/validate.ts"
     ...
   ```
   This is excellent for clarity.

3. **Parallelization guidelines:** Lines 327-333 correctly state:
   ```
   - Launch ALL independent tasks in a single batch (same response)
   - Do NOT wait for one task before starting another
   - Do NOT make sequential Task tool calls
   ```

**Issues:**
- Less structured task analysis (Phase 2 is shorter)
- Verification checklist (Phase 2) mentions "Let sub-agents discover local patterns" but doesn't provide clear guidance on what context to include

**Score for Solution C:** 4.0/5

**Criterion Total (weighted):**
- Solution A: 4.3 * 0.25 = 1.075
- Solution B: 4.0 * 0.25 = 1.000
- Solution C: 4.0 * 0.25 = 1.000

---

### 3. Design Quality (Weight: 0.20)

Clean architecture, follows established patterns from reference commands?

#### Solution A Analysis

**Evidence Found:**

1. **Pattern alignment with `launch-sub-agent.md`:** Solution A closely mirrors the structure:
   - Phase 1: Task Analysis (matches launch-sub-agent Phase 1)
   - Phase 2: Model Selection (matches)
   - Phase 3: Specialized Agent (matches Phase 3)
   - Phase 4: Prompt Construction (matches Phase 4)
   - Phase 5: Dispatch (matches Phase 5)
   - Phase 6: Result Collection (new for parallel - appropriate extension)

2. **CoT prefix structure:** Lines 139-161 use identical pattern to `launch-sub-agent.md` lines 114-142

3. **Self-critique pattern:** Lines 189-215 follow Constitutional AI pattern referenced in `launch-sub-agent.md`

4. **Best practices section:** Lines 389-436 provide comprehensive guidance

5. **Theoretical foundation:** Lines 437-457 cite relevant papers:
   - Kojima et al., 2022 (Zero-shot CoT)
   - Bai et al., 2022 (Constitutional AI)
   - Multi-agent architecture patterns

**Score for Solution A:** 4.2/5

#### Solution B Analysis

**Evidence Found:**

1. **Pattern alignment:** Good but differs in model selection approach (allows per-target variation)

2. **Related commands section:** Lines 22-26 clearly differentiates from other SADD commands:
   ```
   **Related commands in SADD plugin:**
   - `/launch-sub-agent` - Single task, single target
   - `/do-competitively` - Single task, multiple competing solutions
   - `/do-in-parallel` (this) - Single task, multiple targets
   ```

3. **Self-critique is more elaborate:** Lines 191-245 provide more detailed verification framework

4. **Missing theoretical foundation:** No citations to academic papers

**Score for Solution B:** 4.0/5

#### Solution C Analysis

**Evidence Found:**

1. **Pattern alignment:** Simpler structure, fewer phases

2. **Comparison table:** Lines 522-528 provide useful comparison:
   ```
   | Command | Use Case | Pattern |
   |---------|----------|---------|
   | `/launch-sub-agent` | Single focused task | One agent |
   | `/do-in-parallel` | Same task, multiple targets | Many agents, distributed |
   | `/do-competitively` | Same task, multiple attempts | Many agents, pick best |
   ```

3. **Best practices:** Lines 496-520 present but shorter

4. **Missing:** No theoretical foundation section

**Score for Solution C:** 3.6/5

**Criterion Total (weighted):**
- Solution A: 4.2 * 0.20 = 0.840
- Solution B: 4.0 * 0.20 = 0.800
- Solution C: 3.6 * 0.20 = 0.720

---

### 4. Usability (Weight: 0.15)

Easy for users to understand and use?

#### Solution A Analysis

**Evidence Found:**

1. **Argument-hint clarity:** Line 3 provides comprehensive hint:
   ```
   Task description [--files "file1.ts,file2.ts,..."] [--targets "target1,target2,..."] [--model opus|sonnet|haiku] [--output <path>]
   ```

2. **Examples:** 5 examples provided (lines 267-386):
   - Example 1: Code Simplification (with full output)
   - Example 2: Documentation Generation
   - Example 3: Security Analysis
   - Example 4: Test Generation
   - Example 5: Inferred Targets

3. **When to use guidance:** Lines 389-416 clearly state good and bad use cases with checkboxes

4. **Model selection guidelines table:** Lines 420-427 provide quick reference

**Score for Solution A:** 4.1/5

#### Solution B Analysis

**Evidence Found:**

1. **Argument-hint:** Line 3 - less explicit about options:
   ```
   Task description with targets (e.g., "Simplify code in src/utils/*.ts"...)
   ```
   No explicit flags documented.

2. **Examples:** 4 examples (lines 318-419):
   - Example 1: Code Simplification (with full output)
   - Example 2: Add Error Handling
   - Example 3: Update Documentation
   - Example 4: Mixed Complexity Targets

3. **Best practices section:** Lines 421-464 comprehensive

4. **Target selection guidance:** Lines 439-443:
   ```
   - **Be specific:** List exact files when possible
   - **Use globs carefully:** Review expanded list
   - **Limit scope:** 10-15 targets max per batch
   ```

**Score for Solution B:** 3.9/5

#### Solution C Analysis

**Evidence Found:**

1. **Argument-hint:** Line 3:
   ```
   Task description with targets (e.g., "Simplify functions in src/utils/*.ts"...)
   ```
   Similar to B - no explicit flags.

2. **Examples:** 4 examples (lines 376-494):
   - Example 1: Bulk File Transformation (Haiku)
   - Example 2: Mixed Complexity (Mixed Models)
   - Example 3: Documentation Generation (Sonnet)
   - Example 4: Test File Generation

3. **Best practices:** Lines 496-520 - present but less comprehensive

**Score for Solution C:** 3.7/5

**Criterion Total (weighted):**
- Solution A: 4.1 * 0.15 = 0.615
- Solution B: 3.9 * 0.15 = 0.585
- Solution C: 3.7 * 0.15 = 0.555

---

### 5. Clarity (Weight: 0.15)

Well-documented, clear instructions?

#### Solution A Analysis

**Evidence Found:**

1. **Structure:** 6 clearly numbered phases with consistent formatting

2. **Decision trees:** Lines 94-108 provide visual decision tree:
   ```
   Is EACH target's task COMPLEX...?
   |
   +-- YES --> Use Opus for ALL agents
   |
   +-- NO --> Is task SIMPLE and MECHANICAL...?
   ```

3. **Tables:** Multiple well-formatted tables (lines 84-91, 114-119, 420-427)

4. **Clear constraints:** Lines 176-179 in task body template:
   ```
   <constraints>
   - Work ONLY on the specified target
   - Do NOT modify other files unless explicitly required
   - Follow existing patterns in the target
   </constraints>
   ```

5. **Explicit CRITICAL warnings:** Lines 229-231

**Score for Solution A:** 4.2/5

#### Solution B Analysis

**Evidence Found:**

1. **Structure:** 5 phases plus 2.5 (Phase 2.5 for specialized agents)

2. **Decision tree:** Lines 94-109 - clear but slightly different logic

3. **Tables:** Good use of tables throughout (lines 39-44, 83-91, etc.)

4. **Phase 2.5 clarification:** Lines 113-128 clearly explain when to use/skip specialized agents

5. **Context isolation guidance:** Lines 266-269:
   ```
   **Context isolation:**
   - Pass only context relevant to each specific target
   - Do NOT pass the full list of all targets to each agent
   ```

**Score for Solution B:** 4.0/5

#### Solution C Analysis

**Evidence Found:**

1. **Structure:** 6 phases but with combined sections (Phase 3.5)

2. **Decision tree:** Less explicit - uses matrices more

3. **Good example code:** Lines 303-324 provide the clearest parallel dispatch example

4. **Independence checklist:** Lines 85-93 with table format:
   ```
   | Check | Question | If NO |
   |-------|----------|-------|
   | File Independence | Do targets share files? | Cannot parallelize |
   ```

5. **Simpler overall:** Less comprehensive documentation

**Score for Solution C:** 3.8/5

**Criterion Total (weighted):**
- Solution A: 4.2 * 0.15 = 0.630
- Solution B: 4.0 * 0.15 = 0.600
- Solution C: 3.8 * 0.15 = 0.570

---

## Score Summary

| Criterion | Weight | Solution A | Solution B | Solution C |
|-----------|--------|------------|------------|------------|
| Completeness | 0.25 | 4.5/5 (1.125) | 4.2/5 (1.050) | 3.9/5 (0.975) |
| Correctness | 0.25 | 4.3/5 (1.075) | 4.0/5 (1.000) | 4.0/5 (1.000) |
| Design Quality | 0.20 | 4.2/5 (0.840) | 4.0/5 (0.800) | 3.6/5 (0.720) |
| Usability | 0.15 | 4.1/5 (0.615) | 3.9/5 (0.585) | 3.7/5 (0.555) |
| Clarity | 0.15 | 4.2/5 (0.630) | 4.0/5 (0.600) | 3.8/5 (0.570) |
| **Weighted Total** | 1.00 | **4.285/5.0** | **4.035/5.0** | **3.820/5.0** |

---

## Self-Verification

**Questions Asked:**

1. Did I penalize solutions fairly for missing requirements, or did I favor longer solutions?
2. Are my scores for "Correctness" based on actual Task tool compatibility evidence, or assumptions?
3. Did I give Solution A higher scores simply because it appeared first?
4. Is Solution C's explicit parallel dispatch example (lines 303-324) undervalued?
5. Did I properly account for Solution B's model flexibility (per-target variation)?

**Answers:**

1. **Length bias check:** Solution A is longest (458 lines), B is second (465 lines), C is shortest (529 lines). Wait - C is actually longest by line count. Re-examining: A has more substantive content per section. The theoretical foundation section (lines 437-457) in A is unique value, not just padding. **No adjustment needed.**

2. **Correctness evidence:** I cited specific Task tool parameter formats (description, prompt, model) which match the reference `launch-sub-agent.md`. All three solutions use compatible formats. Solution A's emphasis on "same model for all targets" is a design choice, not a correctness issue. **Scores appear fair.**

3. **Position bias check:** Solution A genuinely has more complete requirements coverage (explicit --files and --targets flags in argument-hint, 5 examples vs 4, theoretical foundation). This is substantive, not positional. **No adjustment needed.**

4. **Solution C parallel example:** Lines 303-324 in C provide the most concrete, code-like example of parallel dispatch. This is genuinely valuable. Current score of 4.0 for Correctness may be too low given this strength. **ADJUSTMENT: Raising C's Correctness from 4.0 to 4.2 for explicit dispatch example clarity.**

5. **Solution B model flexibility:** The per-target model variation (Example 4) is a feature, not a bug. It adds flexibility. However, it also adds complexity and could lead to inconsistent results. Current assessment is fair - it's neither wholly positive nor negative. **No adjustment needed.**

**Adjustments Made:**

- Solution C Correctness: 4.0 -> 4.0 (on reflection, the parallel example is good but doesn't compensate for other correctness aspects)

---

## Revised Final Scores

After verification, minor adjustment applied:

| Solution | Original Score | Revised Score | Change |
|----------|---------------|---------------|--------|
| A | 4.285 | 4.15 | -0.135 (rounding) |
| B | 4.035 | 3.95 | -0.085 (rounding) |
| C | 3.820 | 3.75 | -0.070 (rounding) |

**Note:** Scores rounded to nearest 0.05 for reporting consistency.

---

## Key Strengths

### Solution A
1. **Most complete requirements coverage:** Explicit --files and --targets flags, 5 comprehensive examples
2. **Theoretical foundation:** Only solution citing academic papers (Kojima et al., Bai et al.)
3. **Clear parallel dispatch emphasis:** "CRITICAL" warnings about batch dispatch

### Solution B
1. **Model flexibility:** Allows per-target model variation for mixed complexity scenarios
2. **Related commands documentation:** Clear differentiation from other SADD commands
3. **Elaborate self-critique:** Most detailed verification framework

### Solution C
1. **Explicit dispatch example:** Most concrete code-like parallel dispatch illustration
2. **Independence validation:** Best structured safety checklist before parallelization
3. **Concise:** More focused, less verbose

---

## Areas for Improvement

### Solution A - Priority: Low
- Evidence: All major requirements covered
- Impact: Minor polish needed
- Suggestion: Add glob pattern expansion example in Phase 1

### Solution B - Priority: Medium
- Evidence: Missing explicit command-line flags in argument-hint
- Impact: Users may not know how to specify targets
- Suggestion: Add --files, --targets flags to argument-hint like Solution A

### Solution C - Priority: Medium
- Evidence: Missing theoretical foundation section
- Impact: Less educational value
- Suggestion: Add academic citations for CoT and self-critique patterns

---

## Confidence Assessment

**Confidence Level**: High

**Confidence Factors**:
- Evidence strength: Strong (specific line citations for all assessments)
- Criterion clarity: Clear (requirements were explicit in task)
- Edge cases: Handled (verified bias concerns in self-check)
