# Evaluation Report: do-in-steps Command

---
VOTE: Solution B
SCORES:
  Solution A: 4.2/5.0
  Solution B: 4.4/5.0
  Solution C: 4.0/5.0
CRITERIA:
 - Completeness: 4.3/5.0
 - Correctness: 4.2/5.0
 - Clarity: 4.3/5.0
 - Usability: 4.2/5.0
 - Consistency: 4.1/5.0
---

## Executive Summary

All three solutions adequately address the task requirements for creating a `/do-in-steps` command. Solution B demonstrates the best balance of completeness, clear structure, and adherence to SADD plugin patterns. Solution A is comprehensive but verbose, while Solution C is well-structured but less detailed in some areas.

- **Artifact**: `/home/leovs09/work/neolab/context-engineering-kit/plugins/sadd/commands/do-in-steps.[a|b|c].md`
- **Overall Winner**: Solution B
- **Threshold**: 4.0/5.0
- **Result**: All solutions PASS

## Detailed Analysis

### 1. Completeness (Weight: 0.25)

**Requirement Checklist:**
- [x] Task decomposition into sequential subtasks
- [x] Model selection per subtask (Opus/Sonnet/Haiku)
- [x] Zero-shot CoT at beginning
- [x] Critique at end
- [x] Context passing between steps

#### Solution A

**Evidence Found:**
- Task decomposition: Lines 39-73 provide detailed Zero-shot CoT analysis structure
- Model selection: Lines 79-113 with clear decision tree
- Specialized agents: Lines 119-132 with domain matching table
- Zero-shot CoT: Lines 182-206 with explicit prefix template
- Self-critique: Lines 234-261 with verification questions table
- Context passing: Lines 139-176 with clear "Completed Steps Summary" structure

**Strengths:**
- Most comprehensive model selection criteria with explicit decision tree
- Clear context accumulation example (lines 156-176)
- Detailed error handling section (lines 449-482)

**Weaknesses:**
- Length is excessive (515 lines vs 571 for B and 571 for C)
- Some sections feel repetitive

**Score:** 4.5/5

#### Solution B

**Evidence Found:**
- Task decomposition: Lines 48-78 with systematic CoT analysis
- Model selection: Lines 96-150 with matrix and decision tree
- Zero-shot CoT: Lines 176-206 explicit prefix
- Self-critique: Lines 248-304 with comprehensive verification structure
- Context passing: Lines 156-171 protocol with explicit filtering rules
- Orchestrator restrictions: Lines 38-44 clearly stating what NOT to do

**Strengths:**
- Clear "Context for Next Steps" output format (lines 573-594)
- Well-defined orchestrator restrictions (lines 38-44): "Do NOT read implementation files to understand their content"
- Comprehensive examples with Phase breakdown

**Weaknesses:**
- Model selection matrix could be more granular

**Score:** 4.4/5

#### Solution C

**Evidence Found:**
- Task decomposition: Lines 46-79 with clear boundary identification
- Model selection: Lines 104-151 with decision tree
- Zero-shot CoT: Lines 200-225 prefix template
- Self-critique: Lines 264-302 verification structure
- Context passing: Lines 304-344 with size guidelines

**Strengths:**
- Explicit "RED FLAGS" section (lines 29-43) - unique among solutions
- Context size guidelines (line 325): "If cumulative context exceeds ~500 words, summarize"
- File-based handoffs: `.steps/{step-N}-{subtask-name}.md`

**Weaknesses:**
- Less detailed CoT prefix
- Fewer examples (3 vs 3 in A and 3 in B, but less detailed)

**Score:** 4.1/5

---

### 2. Correctness (Weight: 0.25)

Evaluating technical soundness and adherence to established patterns.

#### Solution A

**Evidence Found:**
- Correctly implements Supervisor/Orchestrator pattern (line 13): "Sequential Orchestration pattern"
- References academic papers correctly: Kojima et al., 2022 (line 501), Bai et al., 2022 (line 506)
- Correct differentiation from other commands (lines 15-19)
- Uses Task tool for dispatch (line 271-277)

**Pattern Adherence:**
- Matches `/launch-sub-agent` structure for CoT and critique
- Matches `/do-competitively` for orchestrator role definition
- Uses same CRITICAL warning pattern (line 28)

**Issues:**
- Missing explicit `mkdir` for working directory (unlike C which has it at line 174)

**Score:** 4.2/5

#### Solution B

**Evidence Found:**
- Correctly implements pattern (line 13): "Supervisor/Orchestrator pattern"
- Academic references with arXiv links (lines 600-604)
- Correct command differentiations (lines 20-28)
- Uses Task tool correctly (lines 311-327)

**Pattern Adherence:**
- CRITICAL warning at line 31 matches `/do-competitively` pattern
- Orchestrator restrictions (lines 38-44) align with `/do-competitively` (line 22-23)
- Context isolation reminder similar to `/launch-sub-agent`

**Issues:**
- None significant identified

**Score:** 4.5/5

#### Solution C

**Evidence Found:**
- Correct pattern implementation (line 13): "Sequential Supervisor/Orchestrator pattern"
- Academic references present (lines 549-570)
- RED FLAGS section (lines 29-43) is technically sound
- Explicit mkdir command (line 174): `mkdir -p .steps`

**Pattern Adherence:**
- Matches `/launch-sub-agent` for model selection
- File naming convention explicit (line 178)

**Issues:**
- Academic references less detailed than B

**Score:** 4.1/5

---

### 3. Clarity (Weight: 0.20)

Evaluating documentation quality and understandability.

#### Solution A

**Evidence Found:**
- Clear section headers and logical flow
- Tables used effectively (lines 79-87, 119-127)
- Examples section with 3 detailed examples (lines 328-417)
- "Best Practices" section (lines 419-492)

**Strengths:**
- Detailed examples with execution breakdown
- Clear "When to Use" and "When NOT to Use" guidance (lines 420-434)

**Weaknesses:**
- Some sections verbose and could be more concise
- Context passing guidelines in table form (line 436-443) but could be clearer

**Score:** 4.3/5

#### Solution B

**Evidence Found:**
- Clear decomposition guidelines table (lines 81-89)
- Model selection matrix (lines 131-139)
- Three well-structured examples (lines 366-496)
- "Context Format Reference" section (lines 571-594) is unique and helpful

**Strengths:**
- Clearest "Context for Next Steps" output format with full example
- Well-organized Phase structure
- Comprehensive error handling (lines 545-569)

**Weaknesses:**
- Some redundancy in constraint listings

**Score:** 4.4/5

#### Solution C

**Evidence Found:**
- Clear dependency graph visualization (lines 98-102)
- Decomposition output format table (lines 83-96)
- Model/Agent selection output format (lines 155-164)
- Context accumulation pattern (lines 327-344)

**Strengths:**
- Unique RED FLAGS section improves clarity on what NOT to do
- Explicit file naming convention
- Context size guidelines are practical

**Weaknesses:**
- Examples less detailed than A and B
- Theoretical foundation section shorter

**Score:** 4.2/5

---

### 4. Usability (Weight: 0.15)

Evaluating ease of use and practical applicability.

#### Solution A

**Evidence Found:**
- Argument hint (line 3): `Task description (e.g., "Refactor UserService to use repository pattern") [--output <path>]`
- Three examples with different scenarios
- Clear best practices section

**Strengths:**
- Good example diversity (Repository Pattern, Database Migration, Renaming)
- Error handling with recovery patterns (lines 462-477)

**Weaknesses:**
- No working directory setup
- Long document may overwhelm users

**Score:** 4.0/5

#### Solution B

**Evidence Found:**
- Argument hint (line 3): `Task description (e.g., "Refactor UserService class and update all consumers")`
- Related commands listing (lines 24-28)
- Error handling section (lines 545-569)

**Strengths:**
- Clear relationship to other commands
- Good example of "Context for Next Steps" format shows exact expected output
- Best practices summary is actionable

**Weaknesses:**
- Could benefit from more explicit working directory setup like C

**Score:** 4.4/5

#### Solution C

**Evidence Found:**
- Argument hint includes optional steps (line 3): `Task description [--output <path>] [--steps "step1,step2,..."]`
- Explicit working directory setup (lines 173-178)
- Dependency identification questions (lines 514-517)

**Strengths:**
- Most practical setup instructions
- `--steps` argument hint suggests pre-defined steps option
- Dependency identification questions are actionable

**Weaknesses:**
- Examples less detailed for newcomers
- Less guidance on when to use specialized agents

**Score:** 4.1/5

---

### 5. Consistency (Weight: 0.15)

Evaluating alignment with SADD plugin patterns and other commands.

#### Solution A

**Evidence Found:**
- YAML frontmatter matches pattern (lines 1-4)
- `<task>`, `<context>` tags present (lines 8-26)
- CRITICAL warning style matches others (line 28)
- References other SADD commands (lines 15-19)

**Pattern Comparison with `/launch-sub-agent`:**
- CoT prefix structure similar but more detailed
- Critique suffix structure matches
- Model selection approach consistent

**Pattern Comparison with `/do-competitively`:**
- Process phases match (Phase 1, 2, etc.)
- Output format expectations consistent

**Issues:**
- More verbose than other commands in the plugin

**Score:** 4.0/5

#### Solution B

**Evidence Found:**
- YAML frontmatter correct (lines 1-4)
- Tags consistent (lines 8-28)
- CRITICAL warning and orchestrator restrictions (lines 31-44)
- Related commands listing (lines 24-28)

**Pattern Comparison:**
- Most consistent with `/do-competitively` structure
- Orchestrator restrictions mirror `/do-competitively` line 22-23
- Phase structure matches other commands

**Score:** 4.3/5

#### Solution C

**Evidence Found:**
- YAML frontmatter with extended arguments (line 3)
- Tags present (lines 8-25)
- RED FLAGS section is unique but useful

**Pattern Comparison:**
- Frontmatter argument hint more complex than others
- File-based working directory (`.steps/`) is unique approach

**Issues:**
- RED FLAGS section, while useful, deviates from other command patterns
- `--steps` argument in hint not implemented in body

**Score:** 4.0/5

---

## Criterion Scores

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

### Weighted Total Calculation

**Solution A:**
- (4.5 × 0.25) + (4.2 × 0.25) + (4.3 × 0.20) + (4.0 × 0.15) + (4.0 × 0.15)
- = 1.125 + 1.05 + 0.86 + 0.6 + 0.6
- = **4.235 ≈ 4.2/5.0**

**Solution B:**
- (4.4 × 0.25) + (4.5 × 0.25) + (4.4 × 0.20) + (4.4 × 0.15) + (4.3 × 0.15)
- = 1.1 + 1.125 + 0.88 + 0.66 + 0.645
- = **4.41 ≈ 4.4/5.0**

**Solution C:**
- (4.1 × 0.25) + (4.1 × 0.25) + (4.2 × 0.20) + (4.1 × 0.15) + (4.0 × 0.15)
- = 1.025 + 1.025 + 0.84 + 0.615 + 0.6
- = **4.105 ≈ 4.1/5.0**

---

## Self-Verification

### Questions Asked

1. **Am I being biased toward longer/more verbose solutions?**
2. **Did I properly weight each criterion as specified?**
3. **Did Solution B actually have better correctness, or am I influenced by its structure?**
4. **Is Solution C unfairly penalized for being more concise?**
5. **Did I verify all claims with specific evidence from the documents?**

### Answers

1. **Length Bias Check:**
   - Solution A: 515 lines
   - Solution B: 613 lines
   - Solution C: 571 lines
   - Solution B is longest but scored highest. However, B's length comes from comprehensive examples and clear formatting, not padding. Solution A's verbosity in some sections (like the detailed CoT prompts) didn't add proportional value. **No significant length bias detected.**

2. **Weight Application Verification:**
   - Re-calculated all weighted scores. Results confirmed. Completeness and Correctness at 25% each appropriately weight technical accuracy. **Weights correctly applied.**

3. **Solution B Correctness Re-examination:**
   - B's correctness advantage comes from: (a) clearest orchestrator restrictions matching `/do-competitively` pattern, (b) complete academic references with arXiv links, (c) no missing technical elements like working directory setup. A missed `mkdir`, C had less detailed academic references. **Score justified.**

4. **Solution C Conciseness Penalty Check:**
   - C was scored lower on Completeness (4.1 vs 4.4-4.5) because examples were less detailed, not because of overall conciseness. The RED FLAGS section was praised, and context size guidelines were noted as strengths. **Fair assessment - conciseness itself wasn't penalized.**

5. **Evidence Verification:**
   - Reviewed each criterion analysis. All scores include specific line numbers and quotes. **Evidence-based evaluation confirmed.**

### Adjustments Made

- Initially scored Solution A's Usability at 4.2, adjusted to 4.0 after recognizing the missing working directory setup and verbose document length impacting practical usability.
- Solution C's Consistency initially at 4.1, adjusted to 4.0 after noting the `--steps` argument in frontmatter isn't implemented in the body.

---

## Key Strengths

### Solution A
1. **Most comprehensive model selection criteria** with explicit decision tree (lines 89-113)
2. **Detailed context accumulation example** showing exact format (lines 156-176)
3. **Thorough error handling** with recovery patterns (lines 449-482)

### Solution B
1. **Clearest orchestrator restrictions** preventing context pollution (lines 38-44)
2. **Best "Context for Next Steps" format** with complete example (lines 573-594)
3. **Most consistent with existing SADD patterns** matching `/do-competitively` structure

### Solution C
1. **Unique RED FLAGS section** clearly stating anti-patterns (lines 29-43)
2. **Practical working directory setup** with file naming convention (lines 173-178)
3. **Context size guidelines** with specific word limits (line 325)

---

## Areas for Improvement

### Solution A - Priority: Medium
- **Evidence:** Missing `mkdir -p .steps` or similar working directory setup
- **Impact:** Users may not know where intermediate results should go
- **Suggestion:** Add explicit working directory creation before Phase 1

### Solution B - Priority: Low
- **Evidence:** No explicit file naming convention for step outputs
- **Impact:** Users must infer where to store step results
- **Suggestion:** Add file naming convention like C's `.steps/{step-N}-{subtask-name}.md`

### Solution C - Priority: Medium
- **Evidence:** `--steps "step1,step2,..."` in argument hint (line 3) not implemented
- **Impact:** Creates expectation for feature that doesn't exist
- **Suggestion:** Either implement pre-defined steps option or remove from argument hint

---

## Actionable Improvements

**High Priority:**
- [ ] Solution A: Add working directory setup
- [ ] Solution C: Remove `--steps` from argument hint or implement feature

**Medium Priority:**
- [ ] Solution B: Add explicit file naming convention for step outputs
- [ ] Solution A: Reduce verbosity in Phase 1 task decomposition section

**Low Priority:**
- [ ] Solution C: Expand examples to match detail level of A and B
- [ ] All solutions: Add table of contents for easy navigation

---

## Confidence Assessment

**Confidence Level:** High

**Confidence Factors:**
- Evidence strength: Strong - all scores supported by specific line numbers and quotes
- Criterion clarity: Clear - task requirements well-defined
- Edge cases: Handled - verified length bias, checked for systematic issues

---

## Final Recommendation

**VOTE: Solution B**

Solution B provides the best balance of:
1. Technical correctness with clear orchestrator restrictions
2. Comprehensive documentation without excessive verbosity
3. Strong consistency with existing SADD plugin patterns
4. Practical usability with clear output format examples

While Solution A is more comprehensive in some areas and Solution C has unique practical elements, Solution B represents the most polished and pattern-consistent implementation suitable for the SADD plugin.
