broomva unhobble
Constraints written to protect against a weaker model's failure modes go net-negative once the model's judgement exceeds the rule. They collide with each other and with the user's actual request, and the model spends its reasoning resolving the collision instead of doing the work. The correction is deletion, not refinement.
Anthropic's Claude Code team removed over 80% of Claude Code's system prompt for Claude 5 models with no measurable loss on their coding evals. The diagnostic that started it: reading their own transcripts, they found "leave documentation as appropriate" fighting "DO NOT add comments" inside a single request.
This skill is that cut, made repeatable — and made safe, because the naive version of the rule deletes load-bearing prose.
The measure-then-adjudicate split
The script measures. It never says "delete."
Whether a rule can go depends on whether something other than the prose enforces it — a hook, a CI job, a test, a runtime check. That is a grounding question, and a regex answering it would be guessing in a confident voice. So:
python3 scripts/context_audit.py <path> [<path>...] --repo-root <repo> --budget 5000
python3 scripts/context_audit.py --prompt-file draft.md # prompt mode
python3 scripts/context_audit.py <path> --json # machine-readable
You get per-section tokens, directive form, a rules-ratio (share of directives phrased as hard rules), near-duplicate clusters, contradiction candidates, derivable-content flags, and anchored-candidate marks — paired with a firing column that stays unresolved until a probe says otherwise. Then you adjudicate.
The rules-ratio counts uses, not mentions: a quoted rule and a description of what a script does are not directives. Without that distinction the surfaces worth auditing score as pure prohibition merely for quoting the rules they propose to delete.
Adjudication
Classify every section against the mechanism that enforces it, not against how
important it sounds. Detail and worked examples in
references/adjudication.md.
| The prose is… | Action |
|---|---|
| anchored, probed — a mechanism produces the signal, and a probe receipt attests it fires for this rule | delete the prose, keep the mechanism. Free. Zero behavior change. |
| anchored candidate, unprobed — the mechanism exists; nothing shows it fires | confirm before cutting — references/mechanism-probe.md. Free only once it comes back green. |
| not a check — descriptive, or derivable from the filesystem | relocate behind progressive disclosure. Free. |
| only carrier, high value | keep — and label it a heuristic, not an invariant. Or spend the effort to anchor it. |
| only carrier, redundant or unused | delete. |
The probed-anchored and not-a-check tiers are usually most of the volume and cost nothing to cut. Deleting an only-carrier section is a real behavioral bet — the article does not license it, and neither does this skill.
Two ways to claim the top tier wrongly. A rule that cites a mechanism is not
thereby anchored: AGENTS.md existing enforces nothing, which is why the script
ignores markdown references. And a mechanism that exists is not thereby
firing — three hooks in the workspace this predicate came from were registered,
scheduled, independent of the agent, and emitting nothing. A third: a probe
receipt is an attestation the script cannot verify, so an actor that writes
its own receipt has proved nothing. Have a runner emit it.
The six reversals
Applied when rewriting whatever survives. Each with a before/after in
references/reversals.md.
| Then | Now |
|---|---|
| Give rules | Let the model use judgement |
| Give examples | Design interfaces — an expressive parameter hints its own usage |
| Put it all upfront | Progressive disclosure — skills, deferred tool loading |
| Repeat yourself | One description, on the tool |
| Memory in CLAUDE.md | Auto-memory |
| Simple specs | Rich references — HTML artifacts, test suites, rubrics, real code |
The canonical rewrite — a comment-style prohibition replaced by "Write code that reads like the surrounding code: match its comment density, naming, and idiom" — is quoted in full in the reference, along with why the judgement frame is both shorter and broader. It lives in one place on purpose; reversal 4 applies to this skill too.
Working shape
- Measure — run the script over every always-on surface at once, so cross-file duplication and contradictions are visible. A surface audited alone hides its collisions with its neighbours.
- Adjudicate — walk the section table, assign each row a tier. An anchored
candidate owes two answers before it is free: does the mechanism fire
(probe it), and does its signal lie outside the governed actor's reach
(
keel). - Cut and rewrite — delete the probed-anchored and not-a-check rows, rewrite survivors into judgement form, move detail behind references.
- Verify — re-run the script. Budget down, rules-ratio down, contradiction count down. Then confirm behavior held: the deleted rules were either enforced elsewhere or genuinely unwanted.
Step 4 is where this earns its keep. A cut that lowers the token count while silently dropping a behavior nothing else enforces is a regression wearing a green number — so state, per deleted section, which mechanism now carries it.
Prompt mode
Same reversals, one prompt. --prompt-file or --prompt-text reports length,
directive mix, examples, and internal contradictions; the rewrite is yours.
Prompts fail the same way governance files do — a stack of prohibitions
accumulated from past failures, several of which now fight each other and none
of which the model still needs.
What the script cannot see
The contradiction pass is lexical: it pairs a hard rule with a soft allowance when they share a topic word. Conflicts worded in different vocabulary are invisible to it. A real example, from a review prompt this skill was tested on:
"Do not comment on formatting — the formatter handles that." "Feel free to note style concerns where appropriate."
Those collide, and the script reports nothing, because formatting and style share no token. So read the surface yourself for semantic conflicts; a zero in that column means none were lexically detectable, not that none exist.
Same caution on the other columns. derivable and anchored_candidate are
heuristics over shape. The rules-ratio counts sentences, so one dense paragraph
of judgement can outweigh ten terse prohibitions. The numbers are there to
direct attention, not to substitute for reading.
Two hard limits worth knowing rather than discovering. Near-duplicate detection
compares section pairs exhaustively, so it is quadratic in section count —
above 2500 sections the heaviest are compared and the report says how many were
skipped. And anchored_candidate reports only that a referenced file exists,
tagged repo / user / command scope. Firing is a separate column, Fires?,
which stays ? until a probe receipt resolves it — nothing about a file's shape
says whether it emits a signal.
Scope
Governance surfaces, skills, system prompts, prompts. Not code comments, not user-facing copy, not README prose for humans.
Related: keel measures whether verification is anchored (this composes it for
the tier-1 call); /doctor is the vendor's rightsizing pass and knows nothing
about your mechanisms; harness-engineering-playbook builds harness surfaces
where this one prunes them.
Anti-rationalization
| Excuse | Reality |
|---|---|
| "The rule is important, so keep it." | Importance is not the predicate — enforcement is. An important rule that a hook already enforces is still decorative prose. Delete the prose, keep the hook. |
| "Token count went down, done." | A lower number with a silently dropped behavior is a regression. Name the carrier for every deletion. |
| "It's only 400 tokens." | It is 400 tokens on every request, competing with the user's actual ask, and colliding with its neighbours. |
| "I'll just tighten the wording." | The finding was that refinement is the wrong move. If judgement now exceeds the rule, the rule goes. |
| "The script didn't flag it, so it's fine." | The script flags shape, not correctness. Zero contradictions means none were lexically detectable. |
Flags
| Flag | Effect |
|---|---|
--budget N |
always-on token target (default 5000) |
--split-threshold N |
tokens above which a surface is expected to defer (default 2500) |
--dup-threshold F |
Jaccard floor for near-duplicate pairs (default 0.25) |
--max-contradictions N |
cap on emitted candidates (default 20; the report states the true total) |
--repo-root DIR |
root for mechanism-reference existence checks |
--probe-receipts F |
JSON probe results, keyed by the literal backticked ref and scoped with covers; without it every anchor stays UNRESOLVED |
--fail-on-unmatched-receipts |
exit 1 when a receipt key or covers entry names nothing |
--json |
machine-readable report |
--fail-over-budget |
exit 1 when over --budget (surface mode only) |
--max-rules-ratio F |
exit 1 when the hard-rule share exceeds F |
The two exit-code flags are opt-in for a reason. By default this is a report, not a judge — it exits 0 whatever it finds. Only with a gate flag does a CI step running this command actually enforce anything; without one, such a step is a claim of enforcement rather than the thing itself, which is the exact confusion the adjudication table exists to resolve.
Validation
tests/ covers segmentation, polarity classification, shingle duplication,
contradiction pairing, the anchored-candidate rule — markdown references stay
unanchored, since a citation carries no enforcement — and the probe states,
including that a receipt with no negative control stays incomplete.
Dogfood: CI audits this skill's own SKILL.md under --max-rules-ratio, so
the skill fails its build if it drifts into the prohibition style it argues
against.
References
references/reversals.md— the six reversals with before/after.references/adjudication.md— the tier table, worked, with the keel receipt.references/mechanism-probe.md— the three-leg probe, with three hooks that existed and were dead.research/entities/concept/unhobbling-over-constraining.md— the concept and its provenance.