📝 Headless-forks post-mortem and Spire guidance text audit

2026-10-16 23:03:06 +02:00
parent dff19572ab
commit 5bd945ea60
4 changed files with 536 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -17,6 +17,16 @@
 - **"Could all this not be expressed simpler?"** For example, resolve complex ifs into a simple, elegant `match`, or move a class up a layer because that decouples the whole structure. Simplification is design work, and no stage of the current cycle does it: reviews hunt bugs, fixes add, nothing removes.
 - The user wonders whether this is partly their own fault, for being chaotic and having too many thoughts at once. *(Igor's note: the build's failure modes — no structure in the plan, cold starts, review loops that only add — are process failures, not the user's.)*

+## Correction and additions (user, 2026-10-16, later)
+
+- "How much Opus can throw out" meant **how much output it can generate**, not deleting code. Igor misread this above as "trust Opus to throw code away".
+- On deleting code, the user's actual view:
+  - Throwing code away is sometimes wise, **as long as you commit before throwing it out**. History is usually useful.
+  - All code teaches something. This prototype holds a lot of wisdom and logic, and the user doesn't want to downplay it. **It was just too much.**
+  - It would have helped to have a prototype first, and then use it to write the real code.
+- The user wants the whole build bundled into a report that honestly calls it a failure. The approval waits cost time, but they are not the main issue.
+- **Guidance hasn't found its sweet spot yet.** Open question: how big are the skills in text, how much of it is filler, and is each skill truly written for an agent, or does it regurgitate knowledge the model already has?
+
 ## Answer: how much code can Opus 5.5 produce in one go?

 *(Igor, 2026-10-16, from the claude-api skill's model table)*