KevinZai Corrective Framing
When an agent keeps forgetting to do something, don't add another "remember to X" instruction. Instead, present a specific, possibly-wrong claim that triggers corrective behavior.
Why It Works
"Remember to run tests" → agent processes as low-priority reminder, often skipped. "You should be running tests after every change — are you still doing it?" → mismatch between stated expectation and actual behavior creates a natural correction event.
The Pattern
❌ Reminder (weak)
Remember to check for TypeScript errors before committing.
✅ Corrective frame (strong)
You should be running `npx tsc --noEmit` before every commit — verify this is happening.
❌ Reminder (weak)
Don't forget to update the tests when you change the API.
✅ Corrective frame (strong)
API changes without corresponding test updates are the #1 source of regressions in this codebase. If you changed an API, the tests should already be updated — confirm.
When to Use
- CLAUDE.md rules that get ignored — rewrite as corrective assertions
- Recurring mistakes — frame as "this pattern causes X, you should be avoiding it"
- Quality gates — "you should have already done X before reaching this point"
- Agent instructions — present expectations as verifiable claims
Key Principles
- Specific > generic. "Tests should pass" < "The API route tests in
__tests__/api/should pass after your schema change" - Consequence > instruction. Name what breaks, not just what to do
- Verifiable > aspirational. Agent should be able to check whether the claim is true
- Sparingly. 3 corrective frames in CLAUDE.md > 15 reminders. Overuse dilutes the signal.
Anti-Patterns
- Don't use for genuinely new information (agent can't "correct" what it doesn't know)
- Don't stack multiple corrective frames in sequence (reads as nagging)
- Don't use passive-aggressive framing ("you probably forgot to...")