# Evaluation Report: do-in-steps Command

---
VOTE: Solution B
SCORES:
  Solution A: 4.2/5.0
  Solution B: 4.4/5.0
  Solution C: 4.1/5.0
CRITERIA:
 - Completeness: 4.3/5.0
 - Correctness: 4.2/5.0
 - Clarity: 4.3/5.0
 - Usability: 4.1/5.0
 - Consistency: 4.2/5.0
---

**Summary:** Solution B demonstrates the strongest overall implementation with the best balance of completeness, clarity, and practical usability. While all three solutions meet the core requirements, Solution B provides more actionable guidance for model selection, cleaner context propagation patterns, and better-structured examples.

## Executive Summary

All three solutions implement the `/do-in-steps` command with:
- Task decomposition into sequential subtasks
- Dependency-aware ordering
- Model selection per subtask (Opus/Sonnet/Haiku)
- Zero-shot CoT at the beginning of sub-agent prompts
- Self-critique at the end of sub-agent prompts
- Context passing between steps

**Key differentiators:**
- Solution A excels in theoretical grounding and context accumulation examples
- Solution B provides the most structured and actionable guidance for orchestrators
- Solution C emphasizes practical file-based output with `.steps/` directory pattern

## Detailed Analysis

### 1. Completeness (25% weight)

**Evidence Analysis:**

**Solution A (4.4/5.0):**
- Task decomposition: Lines 39-73 - "Phase 1: Task Decomposition with Zero-shot CoT" with detailed breakdown
- Model selection: Lines 79-113 - Full decision tree with table and visual diagram
- Specialized agents: Lines 115-133 - Table mapping domains to agents
- Context passing: Lines 139-176 - "Context Accumulation Structure" with detailed example
- Zero-shot CoT: Lines 182-206 - Complete prefix with "Let's think step by step"
- Self-critique: Lines 233-261 - Complete verification questions and revision process
- Error handling: Lines 449-483 - Comprehensive error handling with recovery patterns
- Examples: Lines 328-417 - Three complete examples with decomposition and model selection

**Solution B (4.5/5.0):**
- Task decomposition: Lines 48-95 - "Phase 1: Task Analysis and Decomposition" with structured output format
- Model selection: Lines 96-150 - "Model Selection Matrix" with complexity/scope/risk table
- Specialized agents: Lines 142-150 - Table with clear "Consider/Skip" columns
- Context passing: Lines 152-329 - Detailed protocol with "Context for Next Steps" template
- Zero-shot CoT: Lines 176-206 - Well-structured 4-step reasoning prefix
- Self-critique: Lines 248-304 - "Self-Critique Verification (MANDATORY)" with 5 verification questions
- Error handling: Lines 546-569 - Clear "If a Step Fails", "If Context is Missing", "If Steps Conflict"
- Examples: Lines 366-497 - Three examples with full phase breakdowns
- Theoretical foundation: Lines 596-612 - Academic references AND engineering practices

**Solution C (4.1/5.0):**
- Task decomposition: Lines 46-102 - Structured with dependency graph visualization
- Model selection: Lines 104-165 - Decision tree with specialized agent matching
- Specialized agents: Lines 138-151 - Task indicators table
- Context passing: Lines 304-344 - Context accumulation pattern
- Zero-shot CoT: Lines 200-225 - 3-step reasoning approach
- Self-critique: Lines 264-302 - 6 verification questions (most detailed)
- Error handling: Lines 532-542 - Brief, less comprehensive
- Examples: Lines 385-494 - Three examples but less phase detail
- Working directory: Lines 172-179 - Unique `.steps/` directory pattern for intermediate results

**Gap Analysis:**
- Solution A lacks explicit "Context for Next Steps" output format that sub-agents should produce
- Solution B provides the most complete error handling taxonomy
- Solution C has shorter error handling section without recovery patterns

**Scores:**
- Solution A: 4.4/5.0 (comprehensive but missing explicit output format for sub-agents)
- Solution B: 4.5/5.0 (most complete with context format reference at line 571-594)
- Solution C: 4.1/5.0 (good coverage but weaker error handling)

---

### 2. Correctness (25% weight)

**Evidence Analysis:**

**Solution A (4.2/5.0):**
- Correctly implements supervisor/orchestrator pattern (line 28): "CRITICAL: You are the orchestrator. You MUST NOT perform the subtasks yourself."
- Model selection aligns with task complexity (lines 79-88): Opus for critical/architecture, Sonnet for standard, Haiku for simple
- CoT prefix placed correctly as "REQUIRED - MUST BE FIRST" (line 182)
- Critique suffix placed correctly as "REQUIRED - MUST BE LAST" (line 233)
- Uses Task tool correctly (line 271-278): "Use Task tool to dispatch sub-agent"

**Issue found:** The decision tree (lines 89-113) has slight inconsistency - "Specialized Agent" is listed as a separate path from model selection, but specialized agents should augment model selection, not replace it. However, this is clarified in line 129-133: "Decision: Include specialized agent when..."

**Solution B (4.3/5.0):**
- Clear orchestrator restrictions (lines 38-44): "Do NOT read implementation files", "Do NOT write code or make changes yourself"
- Model selection matrix is cleaner (lines 130-140): Explicit complexity/scope/risk combinations
- CoT prefix correctly positioned (line 176): "REQUIRED - MUST BE FIRST"
- Critique suffix correctly positioned (line 248): "REQUIRED - MUST BE LAST"
- Dispatch pattern explicit (lines 306-328): Step-by-step with "Parse 'Context for Next Steps' section"

**Minor issue:** Line 514 references `/tree-of-thoughts` which may not exist as a command in this plugin (not in the README). This is a minor inaccuracy.

**Solution C (4.0/5.0):**
- Strong orchestrator enforcement (lines 29-43): Includes "RED FLAGS - Never Do These" section
- Model selection default is "opus" (line 135): "Use Opus (default to quality)" - this is correct for quality-first approach
- CoT prefix correctly positioned (line 200): "REQUIRED - MUST BE FIRST"
- Critique suffix correctly positioned (line 264): "REQUIRED - MUST BE LAST"

**Issue found:** The `.steps/` directory pattern (line 172-179) creates files during orchestration, which may conflict with the principle that orchestrators should not create files themselves. The pattern `mkdir -p .steps` is a bash command the orchestrator runs, which is acceptable but creates coupling between orchestration and file system.

**Pattern Adherence Check:**
All solutions correctly follow patterns from `/launch-sub-agent` and `/do-competitively`:
- Zero-shot CoT prefix structure matches
- Self-critique suffix structure matches
- Model selection reasoning matches
- Task tool dispatch pattern matches

**Scores:**
- Solution A: 4.2/5.0 (correct with minor clarity issue on specialized agents)
- Solution B: 4.3/5.0 (most technically correct, minor reference to non-existent command)
- Solution C: 4.0/5.0 (correct but `.steps/` pattern introduces orchestrator file creation)

---

### 3. Clarity (20% weight)

**Evidence Analysis:**

**Solution A (4.3/5.0):**
- Well-structured phases with clear headers
- Excellent context accumulation example (lines 156-176): Real-world UserRepository example
- Good visual decision tree (lines 89-113)
- Strong "When to Use/Do NOT use" section (lines 419-435)
- Slightly verbose in some sections

**Solution B (4.5/5.0):**
- Clearest phase structure with output formats defined (line 90-95): "Output of Phase 1: Numbered list..."
- "Context Format Reference" section (lines 571-594) with complete example
- Best separation of concerns between orchestrator and sub-agents
- "Orchestrator Restrictions" (lines 38-44) prevents common mistakes
- Tables are well-formatted and actionable

**Solution C (4.2/5.0):**
- "RED FLAGS - Never Do These" section (lines 29-36) is highly actionable
- Good dependency graph visualization (lines 98-102)
- Tables are clear but less comprehensive than Solution B
- `.steps/` file naming convention is practical (line 178)
- Some sections feel abbreviated compared to A and B

**Readability comparison (random section - Model Selection):**

Solution A (lines 79-88):
```markdown
| Subtask Profile | Recommended Model | Rationale |
|-----------------|-------------------|-----------|
| **Architecture/Design** (schema design, interface definition) | `opus` | Critical decisions requiring deep reasoning |
```
Clear and complete.

Solution B (lines 130-140):
```markdown
| Complexity | Scope | Risk | Recommended Model |
|------------|-------|------|-------------------|
| High | Any | Any | `opus` |
| Any | Any | High | `opus` |
```
More systematic with multiple dimensions.

Solution C (lines 128-136):
```markdown
| Subtask Profile | Recommended Model | Rationale |
|-----------------|-------------------|-----------|
| **Complex reasoning** (architecture, design, critical logic) | `opus` | Maximum reasoning capability |
```
Similar to A, slightly shorter.

**Scores:**
- Solution A: 4.3/5.0 (clear but verbose)
- Solution B: 4.5/5.0 (clearest structure and output formats)
- Solution C: 4.2/5.0 (clear but some sections abbreviated)

---

### 4. Usability (15% weight)

**Evidence Analysis:**

**Solution A (4.2/5.0):**
- Argument hint: `argument-hint: Task description (e.g., "Refactor UserService to use repository pattern") [--output <path>]`
- Three practical examples (lines 328-417)
- Clear "When to Use" guidance (lines 419-435)
- Context passing guidelines table (lines 436-447)
- Error recovery pattern (lines 463-478) is actionable

**Solution B (4.3/5.0):**
- Argument hint: `argument-hint: Task description (e.g., "Refactor UserService class and update all consumers")`
- Clearer decomposition output format (lines 90-95) helps users understand expected outputs
- Best practices section (lines 499-543) with clear DO/DON'T patterns
- "When to Use" has clear positive/negative examples (lines 501-516)
- Error handling with multiple scenarios (lines 546-569)

**Solution C (4.0/5.0):**
- Argument hint: `argument-hint: Task description [--output <path>] [--steps "step1,step2,..."]`
- Includes `--steps` option for manual step specification (unique feature)
- "When to Use" section (lines 497-509) is concise
- Working directory pattern `.steps/` provides tangible output location
- Dependency identification questions (lines 514-517) are practical

**Practical test: Can a user understand how to use this command immediately?**

All solutions provide clear examples. Solution B's structured output formats make it easiest to understand what the orchestrator should produce at each phase. Solution C's `--steps` argument allows manual override but adds complexity.

**Scores:**
- Solution A: 4.2/5.0 (usable with good examples)
- Solution B: 4.3/5.0 (most actionable with clear output formats)
- Solution C: 4.0/5.0 (usable but `--steps` argument adds complexity)

---

### 5. Consistency (15% weight)

**Evidence Analysis:**

Comparison with established patterns from `/launch-sub-agent` and `/do-competitively`:

**Frontmatter format:**
- All solutions match pattern: `description:`, `argument-hint:` in YAML frontmatter
- `/launch-sub-agent` uses: `description: Launch an intelligent sub-agent with automatic model selection...`
- All solutions appropriately describe their purpose

**Task/Context structure:**
- `/launch-sub-agent` uses `<task>` and `<context>` tags - all solutions match
- All solutions include "CRITICAL: You are the orchestrator" - matches `/do-competitively` pattern

**Phase structure:**
- `/launch-sub-agent` has 5 phases, `/do-competitively` has 3 main phases
- All solutions use clear phase numbering

**Solution A (4.2/5.0):**
- Matches phase structure well
- "Best Practices" section at end matches pattern
- "Theoretical Foundation" section matches `/launch-sub-agent`
- Model selection table format matches
- Missing some explicit orchestrator restrictions that `/do-competitively` has

**Solution B (4.4/5.0):**
- Best match to `/do-competitively` patterns
- "Related commands in SADD plugin" section (lines 24-28) explicitly shows command relationships
- Orchestrator restrictions match `/do-competitively` (lines 38-44)
- Theoretical foundation section (lines 596-612) well-structured
- Phase 4 "Final Summary" matches `/do-competitively`'s output section pattern

**Solution C (4.1/5.0):**
- "RED FLAGS" section (lines 29-36) is unique - not in other commands but valuable
- Phase structure matches
- `.steps/` directory pattern is unique - may be inconsistent with other commands
- Theoretical foundation section is present but shorter

**Naming consistency:**
- All use `/do-in-steps` matching the file naming pattern `do-in-steps.*.md`
- All reference related commands (`/launch-sub-agent`, `/do-in-parallel`, `/do-competitively`)

**Scores:**
- Solution A: 4.2/5.0 (consistent but missing some patterns from do-competitively)
- Solution B: 4.4/5.0 (best consistency with established patterns)
- Solution C: 4.1/5.0 (introduces new patterns that may not align with others)

---

## Weighted Score Calculation

| Criterion | Weight | Solution A | Solution B | Solution C |
|-----------|--------|------------|------------|------------|
| Completeness | 0.25 | 4.4 | 4.5 | 4.1 |
| Correctness | 0.25 | 4.2 | 4.3 | 4.0 |
| Clarity | 0.20 | 4.3 | 4.5 | 4.2 |
| Usability | 0.15 | 4.2 | 4.3 | 4.0 |
| Consistency | 0.15 | 4.2 | 4.4 | 4.1 |

**Weighted Totals:**
- Solution A: (4.4 × 0.25) + (4.2 × 0.25) + (4.3 × 0.20) + (4.2 × 0.15) + (4.2 × 0.15) = 1.10 + 1.05 + 0.86 + 0.63 + 0.63 = **4.27/5.0**
- Solution B: (4.5 × 0.25) + (4.3 × 0.25) + (4.5 × 0.20) + (4.3 × 0.15) + (4.4 × 0.15) = 1.125 + 1.075 + 0.90 + 0.645 + 0.66 = **4.41/5.0**
- Solution C: (4.1 × 0.25) + (4.0 × 0.25) + (4.2 × 0.20) + (4.0 × 0.15) + (4.1 × 0.15) = 1.025 + 1.00 + 0.84 + 0.60 + 0.615 = **4.08/5.0**

---

## Self-Verification

### Questions Asked:

1. **Am I biased toward longer solutions?** Solution A (515 lines), Solution B (613 lines), Solution C (571 lines) - Solution B is longest but also scored highest. Is this length bias?

2. **Did I properly verify the Zero-shot CoT and Critique requirements?** The task explicitly requires these at beginning and end of sub-agent prompts.

3. **Am I undervaluing Solution C's unique `.steps/` directory feature?** This provides tangible output that other solutions lack.

4. **Did I penalize Solution A unfairly for being "verbose"?** Verbosity can be helpful for clarity.

5. **Is Solution B's reference to `/tree-of-thoughts` a significant error?** This command may or may not exist.

### Answers:

1. **Length bias check:** Re-examined content quality vs. length.
   - Solution A: 515 lines with excellent context accumulation examples but redundant explanations in some sections
   - Solution B: 613 lines with the clearest structure and most actionable guidance - length is justified by content quality
   - Solution C: 571 lines with unique features but some sections are underdeveloped
   - **Conclusion:** Length correlates with quality here, not length bias. Solution B's extra length comes from better-structured output formats and complete examples.

2. **CoT and Critique verification:**
   - Solution A: Lines 182-206 (CoT prefix), Lines 233-261 (Critique suffix) - Both present and correctly positioned
   - Solution B: Lines 176-206 (CoT prefix), Lines 248-304 (Critique suffix) - Both present with more detailed verification questions
   - Solution C: Lines 200-225 (CoT prefix), Lines 264-302 (Critique suffix) - Both present with 6 verification questions
   - **Conclusion:** All solutions meet the requirement. No adjustment needed.

3. **Solution C's `.steps/` directory:**
   Re-examined lines 172-179. This feature:
   - Provides tangible output location (positive)
   - Requires orchestrator to run `mkdir` command (slight inconsistency with "don't perform tasks yourself")
   - Not present in other SADD commands (inconsistency)
   - **Conclusion:** Valuable feature but introduces slight inconsistency. Current scoring is fair.

4. **Solution A verbosity:**
   Re-examined Solution A's context accumulation section (lines 139-176). The example is detailed and practical, not unnecessarily verbose. However, some explanations in other sections could be more concise.
   - **Adjustment:** Raised Solution A's Clarity score consideration, but the overall assessment remains fair.

5. **Solution B's `/tree-of-thoughts` reference:**
   Checked README.md - the command exists (lines 237-330 of README). This is NOT an error.
   - **Adjustment:** No penalty needed. Confirmed Solution B's correctness.

### Adjustments Made:

- Verified `/tree-of-thoughts` exists in README, so Solution B's reference is correct
- Confirmed length bias is not affecting scores - Solution B's length is justified by content quality
- No other adjustments needed

---

## Confidence Assessment

**Confidence Level:** High

**Confidence Factors:**
- Evidence strength: **Strong** - All assessments backed by specific line numbers and quotes
- Criterion clarity: **Clear** - Task requirements were explicit
- Edge cases: **Handled** - Verified CoT/Critique placement, model selection patterns, consistency with other commands

---

## Key Strengths

### Solution A
1. **Excellent context accumulation example** (lines 156-176): Real UserRepository example showing exactly what to pass between steps
2. **Comprehensive error handling** (lines 449-483): Three types of failures with specific recovery patterns
3. **Strong theoretical foundation** (lines 497-512): Clear academic references

### Solution B
1. **Best structured output formats** (lines 90-95, 154-165, 571-594): Clearly defines what orchestrator should produce at each phase
2. **Clearest orchestrator restrictions** (lines 38-44): Explicitly prevents common mistakes
3. **Most consistent with existing patterns**: Best alignment with `/launch-sub-agent` and `/do-competitively`

### Solution C
1. **"RED FLAGS" section** (lines 29-36): Highly actionable list of what NOT to do
2. **`.steps/` directory pattern** (lines 172-179): Tangible output location for intermediate results
3. **Dependency identification questions** (lines 514-517): Practical questions to identify task dependencies

---

## Areas for Improvement

### Solution A - Priority: Medium
- **Issue:** Lacks explicit "Context for Next Steps" output format for sub-agents
- **Evidence:** Lines 139-176 show example but don't define expected output structure
- **Impact:** Sub-agents may not provide context in consistent format
- **Suggestion:** Add explicit output format template like Solution B (lines 571-594)

### Solution B - Priority: Low
- **Issue:** Longest solution at 613 lines
- **Evidence:** Some sections could be more concise
- **Impact:** May take longer to read and internalize
- **Suggestion:** Consider condensing some explanatory sections

### Solution C - Priority: Medium
- **Issue:** Error handling section is abbreviated
- **Evidence:** Lines 532-542 vs. Solution A's 463-483 or Solution B's 546-569
- **Impact:** Less guidance when steps fail
- **Suggestion:** Expand error handling with recovery patterns

---

## Actionable Improvements

**If selecting Solution B (recommended):**

**High Priority:**
- [ ] Consider adding Solution A's detailed context accumulation example (lines 156-176) for additional clarity
- [ ] Consider adding Solution C's "RED FLAGS" section for actionable warnings

**Medium Priority:**
- [ ] Condense some explanatory sections without losing content
- [ ] Add more specific guidance on context size limits (currently "max 20 lines" but could be more explicit)

**Low Priority:**
- [ ] Consider the `.steps/` directory pattern from Solution C for tangible intermediate output
