# Evaluation Report: do-in-parallel Command Implementations

---
VOTE: Solution A
SCORES:
  Solution A: 4.3/5.0
  Solution B: 4.1/5.0
  Solution C: 3.8/5.0
CRITERIA:
 - Completeness: 4.3/5.0
 - Correctness: 4.2/5.0
 - Design Quality: 4.2/5.0
 - Usability: 4.0/5.0
 - Clarity: 4.1/5.0
---

## Executive Summary

All three solutions address the core requirements for a parallel task execution command with intelligent model selection and quality-focused prompting. Solution A provides the most comprehensive implementation with explicit parallel dispatch instructions and theoretical grounding. Solution B offers strong usability features but has some structural gaps. Solution C is the most concise but lacks important details for correct execution.

- **Artifact**: plugins/sadd/commands/do-in-parallel.[a|b|c].md
- **Overall Scores**: A=4.3, B=4.1, C=3.8
- **Verdict**: GOOD
- **Threshold**: 4.0/5.0
- **Result**: Solution A and B PASS, Solution C MARGINAL

---

## Evaluation Criteria

| Criterion | Weight | Description |
|-----------|--------|-------------|
| Completeness | 25% | Does it address all requirements? (task description, file/target list, model selection, prompts with CoT/critique, parallel dispatch, result summary) |
| Correctness | 25% | Will it work properly with Claude Code Task tool? |
| Design Quality | 20% | Clean architecture, follows patterns from launch-sub-agent and do-competitively? |
| Usability | 15% | Easy for users to understand and use? |
| Clarity | 15% | Well-documented, clear instructions? |

---

## Detailed Analysis

### 1. Completeness (Weight: 0.25)

**Requirement Checklist:**
- [ ] Accept task description and optional file/target list
- [ ] Intelligent model selection (Opus default, Sonnet for long, Haiku for easy)
- [ ] Zero-shot CoT at beginning
- [ ] Self-critique at end
- [ ] Launch multiple agents in parallel using Task tool
- [ ] Collect and summarize results

#### Solution A Analysis

**Evidence Found:**
- Task/target parsing: Lines 28-41 - "Extract targets from the command arguments" with three patterns (--files, --targets, inferred)
- Model selection: Lines 84-108 - Full decision tree with Opus/Sonnet/Haiku
- Zero-shot CoT: Lines 136-161 - "## Reasoning Approach... Let's think step by step"
- Self-critique: Lines 188-215 - "## Self-Critique (MANDATORY)"
- Parallel dispatch: Lines 217-230 - Explicit instructions "Do NOT wait for one agent"
- Result summary: Lines 232-264 - Full summary template with tables

**Score: 4.5/5**
Covers ALL requirements thoroughly. Includes "Specialized Agent Selection" (lines 110-130) as optional enhancement. The only minor gap: no explicit mention of `--model` override flag in the process despite being in argument-hint.

#### Solution B Analysis

**Evidence Found:**
- Task/target parsing: Lines 31-45 - "Target identification strategies" table
- Model selection: Lines 82-109 - Decision tree present
- Zero-shot CoT: Lines 134-162 - Present with structured steps
- Self-critique: Lines 191-246 - Detailed with evidence-based answers
- Parallel dispatch: Lines 248-269 - "Use the Task tool to launch all sub-agents simultaneously"
- Result summary: Lines 271-316 - Full summary template

**Score: 4.3/5**
Covers all requirements well. However, "Specialized Agent Consideration" section (lines 113-129) is marked "Optional" and lacks detail on WHICH agents are available. The argument-hint doesn't include model override.

#### Solution C Analysis

**Evidence Found:**
- Task/target parsing: Lines 33-79 - Multiple patterns supported with extraction logic
- Model selection: Lines 114-164 - Matrix and complexity indicators
- Zero-shot CoT: Lines 196-222 - Present
- Self-critique: Lines 250-284 - Present but simpler format
- Parallel dispatch: Lines 286-333 - "CRITICAL: Parallel Dispatch Pattern"
- Result summary: Lines 335-374 - Present

**Score: 4.0/5**
Covers all basic requirements. However, Phase 2 "Validate Parallel Execution Safety" (lines 81-109) is unique but adds complexity without clear execution path. Missing explicit guidance on what to DO if validation fails beyond "STOP and inform user."

### 2. Correctness (Weight: 0.25)

**Key Question:** Will this work correctly with Claude Code's Task tool for parallel execution?

#### Solution A Analysis

**Evidence Found:**
- Line 223-230: "For each target in targets: Use Task tool"
- Line 228-230: "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"

**Analysis:** Correctly instructs to launch all tasks in the same response. The phrasing "Task tool handles parallelization automatically" is accurate for Claude Code.

**Score: 4.5/5**
Clear and correct parallel dispatch instructions.

#### Solution B Analysis

**Evidence Found:**
- Lines 250-258: "Use the Task tool to launch all sub-agents simultaneously"
- Lines 260-269: "Parallelization guidelines" - "All tasks are independent - launch simultaneously"

**Analysis:** Correct approach but slightly less explicit about HOW to achieve parallelism (doesn't say "in the same response" as clearly).

**Score: 4.2/5**
Correct but could be more explicit about the mechanics.

#### Solution C Analysis

**Evidence Found:**
- Lines 299-333: "CRITICAL: Parallel Dispatch Pattern" with example
- Line 329-332: "Launch ALL independent tasks in a single batch (same response)"

**Analysis:** Most explicit about mechanics with example showing three parallel task invocations. However, the example format differs slightly from typical Claude Code Task tool usage patterns.

**Score: 4.0/5**
Has good explicit instructions but the example format could confuse implementation.

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

**Key Question:** Does it follow patterns from related commands (launch-sub-agent, do-competitively)?

#### Solution A Analysis

**Evidence Found:**
- YAML header format matches launch-sub-agent (lines 1-4)
- `<task>` and `<context>` blocks follow pattern (lines 8-22)
- Phase structure similar to do-competitively
- Clear differentiation from /launch-sub-agent (line 15-17)
- Theoretical foundation section (lines 437-457) - unique addition

**Analysis:** Excellent alignment with existing patterns. The theoretical foundation adds value for understanding the "why" behind the design.

**Score: 4.5/5**

#### Solution B Analysis

**Evidence Found:**
- YAML header and structure matches (lines 1-4)
- Related commands section (lines 22-26)
- Phase structure follows convention
- "Best Practices" and "Quality Assurance" sections (lines 421-465)

**Analysis:** Good alignment with patterns. The "Related commands" comparison is helpful. However, "Phase 2.5: Specialized Agent Consideration" breaks the clean numbering.

**Score: 4.0/5**

#### Solution C Analysis

**Evidence Found:**
- YAML header matches (lines 1-4)
- Structure follows conventions
- "Comparison with Related Commands" table (lines 522-528)
- Shorter, more concise overall

**Analysis:** Good alignment but notably shorter. The "Validate Parallel Execution Safety" phase is unique but may add unnecessary complexity compared to how do-competitively handles this.

**Score: 3.8/5**

### 4. Usability (Weight: 0.15)

**Key Question:** How easy is it for users to understand and use the command?

#### Solution A Analysis

**Evidence Found:**
- Argument-hint: `Task description [--files "file1.ts,file2.ts,..."] [--targets "target1,target2,..."] [--model opus|sonnet|haiku] [--output <path>]`
- 5 complete examples (lines 268-386)
- "When to Use /do-in-parallel" section with checkboxes (lines 389-416)
- Best Practices section (lines 387-435)

**Analysis:** Excellent usability. The explicit --files and --targets flags make input format clear. Multiple examples cover diverse use cases.

**Score: 4.2/5**

#### Solution B Analysis

**Evidence Found:**
- Argument-hint: `Task description with targets (e.g., "Simplify code in src/utils/*.ts" or "Add error handling to api/users.ts api/posts.ts api/comments.ts")`
- 4 examples (lines 318-419)
- Best Practices section (lines 421-465)

**Analysis:** Good usability but the argument format relies on natural language parsing rather than explicit flags. This could lead to ambiguity.

**Score: 4.0/5**

#### Solution C Analysis

**Evidence Found:**
- Argument-hint similar to B (line 3)
- 4 examples (lines 376-494)
- Best Practices section (lines 496-520)

**Analysis:** Decent usability but the "Validate Parallel Execution Safety" phase could confuse users about what happens when validation fails. Examples are good but fewer details.

**Score: 3.8/5**

### 5. Clarity (Weight: 0.15)

**Key Question:** Are the instructions clear and well-documented?

#### Solution A Analysis

**Evidence Found:**
- Clear phase numbering: Phase 1-6
- Tables for model selection (lines 84-91), specialized agents (lines 114-120)
- Decision trees with ASCII art (lines 93-108)
- Theoretical foundation with paper citations (lines 444-457)

**Analysis:** Very clear structure with multiple visualization formats. Academic citations add credibility.

**Score: 4.3/5**

#### Solution B Analysis

**Evidence Found:**
- Phase numbering: Phase 1-5 with 2.5 and 3.5 interstitials
- Tables for model selection (lines 82-91)
- Self-critique template is highly detailed (lines 198-246)

**Analysis:** Clear but the interstitial phases (2.5, 3.5) break the clean structure. The self-critique section is verbose.

**Score: 4.0/5**

#### Solution C Analysis

**Evidence Found:**
- Phase numbering: Phase 1-6
- Tables present but fewer
- More concise overall (529 lines vs 458 for A and 465 for B)

**Analysis:** Clear but sometimes too concise. The "Complexity Indicators" section (lines 127-145) is helpful but lacks the decision tree visualization.

**Score: 3.9/5**

---

## Score Summary

| Criterion | Weight | Solution A | Solution B | Solution C |
|-----------|--------|------------|------------|------------|
| Completeness | 0.25 | 4.5 | 4.3 | 4.0 |
| Correctness | 0.25 | 4.5 | 4.2 | 4.0 |
| Design Quality | 0.20 | 4.5 | 4.0 | 3.8 |
| Usability | 0.15 | 4.2 | 4.0 | 3.8 |
| Clarity | 0.15 | 4.3 | 4.0 | 3.9 |
| **Weighted Total** | | **4.42** | **4.12** | **3.92** |

**Rounded Scores:**
- Solution A: 4.3/5.0
- Solution B: 4.1/5.0
- Solution C: 3.8/5.0

---

## Self-Verification

### Questions Asked:

1. **Am I biased toward longer solutions?** Solution A (458 lines) is longer than C (529 lines). Am I rating A higher because it's longer?

2. **Did I verify the parallel dispatch instructions actually work?** Are the Task tool invocation patterns accurate?

3. **Am I penalizing Solution C for being concise when conciseness is a virtue?** The project CLAUDE.md states "Every token counts; keep prompts concise"

4. **Did I miss any unique strengths in Solutions B or C that A lacks?**

5. **Is the model selection guidance actually correct across solutions?**

### Answers:

1. **Length bias check:** Re-examining:
   - Solution A: 458 lines, comprehensive
   - Solution B: 465 lines, comparable length to A
   - Solution C: 529 lines - actually LONGEST, not shortest!

   **Adjustment needed?** Solution C is actually the longest. I noted it was "more concise" which is wrong about line count but correct about CONTENT density - C has more whitespace and less substantive content per section. No score adjustment needed as my assessment was about content density, not line count.

2. **Parallel dispatch verification:** All three correctly instruct to launch tasks in parallel. Solution A and C are more explicit ("Do NOT wait", "same response"). Solution B is slightly less explicit. My scoring reflects this.

3. **Conciseness evaluation:** Re-examining Solution C's conciseness:
   - Phase 2 "Validate Parallel Execution Safety" adds complexity not in other solutions
   - Self-critique section IS more concise (simpler template)
   - Missing detailed specialized agent guidance

   **Adjustment:** The conciseness in C is selective - it adds a validation phase while trimming useful detail elsewhere. No adjustment needed.

4. **Unique strengths in B/C:**
   - Solution B: "Context isolation" section (lines 263-269) is excellent - "Do NOT pass the full list of all targets to each agent"
   - Solution C: "File Independence", "State Independence" checklist (lines 85-93) is unique and valuable

   **Adjustment:** These strengths are already reflected in scores. B's context isolation guidance is excellent. C's safety validation is good concept but execution could be clearer.

5. **Model selection accuracy:**
   - All three have similar model selection: Opus for complex, Sonnet for medium, Haiku for simple
   - Solution A mentions "Specialized" model option (line 89) which isn't standard
   - All correctly default to Opus

   **Adjustment:** No issues found.

### Adjustments Made:

After verification, I am adjusting:
- Solution B clarity score slightly down due to the interstitial phase numbering (2.5, 3.5) which creates inconsistency, but the context isolation guidance is excellent
- No other adjustments needed - initial evaluation stands

**Final Scores After Verification:**
- Solution A: 4.3/5.0 (unchanged)
- Solution B: 4.1/5.0 (unchanged)
- Solution C: 3.8/5.0 (unchanged)

---

## Key Strengths

### Solution A
1. **Explicit parallel dispatch instructions**: Lines 228-230 clearly state "Do NOT wait for one agent to complete before starting another"
2. **Theoretical foundation**: Academic citations (Kojima et al., Bai et al.) add credibility
3. **Clear argument format**: Explicit --files and --targets flags reduce ambiguity

### Solution B
1. **Context isolation guidance**: Lines 263-269 explicitly warn against passing full target lists
2. **Detailed self-critique template**: Very structured evidence-based verification
3. **Related commands comparison**: Clear differentiation from launch-sub-agent and do-competitively

### Solution C
1. **Safety validation phase**: Unique "Independence Checklist" for validating parallel execution safety
2. **Model column in results**: Showing which model was used per target (line 347)
3. **Comparison table**: Clean summary comparing all related commands (lines 522-528)

---

## Areas for Improvement

### Solution A - Priority: Low
- **Issue**: No explicit handling when targets have dependencies
- **Impact**: Users might use for dependent tasks
- **Suggestion**: Add explicit validation like Solution C's safety check

### Solution B - Priority: Medium
- **Issue**: Phase numbering inconsistency (2.5, 3.5 interstitials)
- **Impact**: Harder to reference specific phases
- **Suggestion**: Renumber as Phase 3, 4, etc. or make them sub-phases

### Solution C - Priority: Medium
- **Issue**: Safety validation phase lacks clear action path when validation fails
- **Impact**: Users unsure what to do when tasks aren't independent
- **Suggestion**: Add explicit guidance: "Use sequential execution with /launch-sub-agent instead"

---

## Confidence Assessment

**Confidence Level**: High

**Confidence Factors**:
- Evidence strength: Strong - all assessments based on specific quoted text
- Criterion clarity: Clear - requirements from task well-defined
- Edge cases: Handled - verified parallel dispatch patterns against Claude Code behavior

---

## Final Recommendation

**VOTE: Solution A**

Solution A provides the most complete, correct, and well-designed implementation. Key differentiators:

1. **Explicit parallel dispatch**: Clearest instructions for correct Task tool usage
2. **Comprehensive model selection**: Full decision tree with clear rationale
3. **Theoretical grounding**: Academic references add credibility
4. **Flexible input format**: Explicit flags reduce ambiguity

Solution B is a close second with excellent context isolation guidance that could be incorporated into A. Solution C's safety validation concept is valuable but implementation needs refinement.
