majiayu000 Universal Rule of 5 Review
Review this [CODE/PLAN/RESEARCH/ISSUE/SPEC/DOCUMENT] using Steve Yegge's Rule of 5 - five stages of iterative editorial refinement until convergence.
Work to Review
[PASTE YOUR WORK OR SPECIFY FILE PATH]
Core Philosophy
"Breadth-first exploration, then editorial passes"
Don't aim for perfection in early stages. Each stage builds on insights from previous stages.
Stage 1: DRAFT - Get the shape right
Question: Is the overall approach sound?
Focus on:
- Overall structure and organization
- Major architectural or conceptual issues
- Is this solving the right problem?
- Are the main components/sections present?
- Is the scope appropriate?
- Don't sweat the details yet - focus on the big picture
For Code: Architecture, design patterns, major functions/classes For Plans: Phase structure, dependencies, overall approach For Research: Sections, flow, research questions coverage For Issues: Title appropriateness, basic description presence For Specs: Requirements structure, completeness at high level
Output:
STAGE 1: DRAFT
Assessment: [1-2 sentences on overall shape]
Major Issues:
[DRAFT-001] [CRITICAL|HIGH|MEDIUM|LOW] - [Location]
Description: [What's wrong structurally]
Recommendation: [How to fix]
[DRAFT-002] ...
Shape Quality: [EXCELLENT|GOOD|FAIR|POOR]
Stage 2: CORRECTNESS - Is the logic sound?
Question: Are there errors, bugs, or logical flaws?
Focus on:
- Building on Stage 1 assessment
- Factual accuracy and logical consistency
- Errors, bugs, or incorrect assumptions
- Internal contradictions
- Misinterpretation or misunderstanding
- Does it actually work/make sense?
For Code: Syntax errors, logic bugs, algorithm correctness, data structure usage For Plans: Feasibility issues, impossible dependencies, resource misestimates For Research: Factual errors, incorrect citations, wrong conclusions from data For Issues: Impossible scope, contradictory requirements, technical impossibilities For Specs: Contradictory requirements, infeasible features, wrong assumptions
Output:
STAGE 2: CORRECTNESS
Issues Found:
[CORR-001] [CRITICAL|HIGH|MEDIUM|LOW] - [Location]
Description: [What's incorrect]
Evidence: [Why this is wrong]
Recommendation: [How to fix with specifics]
[CORR-002] ...
Correctness Quality: [EXCELLENT|GOOD|FAIR|POOR]
Convergence Check (after Stage 2):
New CRITICAL issues: [count]
Total new issues: [count]
Status: [CONVERGED | CONTINUE]
Stage 3: CLARITY - Can someone else understand this?
Question: Is this comprehensible to the intended audience?
Focus on:
- Building on corrected work from Stage 2
- Readability and comprehensibility
- Unclear or ambiguous language
- Jargon without explanation
- Poor naming or labeling
- Missing context or explanation
- Flow and organization
For Code: Variable/function names, comments, code organization, complexity For Plans: Phase descriptions, success criteria clarity, instruction specificity For Research: Term definitions, logical flow, transitions, accessibility For Issues: Description clarity, actionability, context sufficiency For Specs: Requirement clarity, unambiguous language, examples provided
Output:
STAGE 3: CLARITY
Issues Found:
[CLAR-001] [HIGH|MEDIUM|LOW] - [Location]
Description: [What's unclear]
Impact: [Why this matters]
Recommendation: [How to improve clarity]
[CLAR-002] ...
Clarity Quality: [EXCELLENT|GOOD|FAIR|POOR]
Convergence Check (after Stage 3):
New CRITICAL issues: [count]
Total new issues: [count]
New issues vs Stage 2: [percentage change]
Status: [CONVERGED | CONTINUE]
Stage 4: EDGE CASES - What could go wrong?
Question: Are boundary conditions and unusual scenarios handled?
Focus on:
- Building on clarified work from Stage 3
- Edge cases and boundary conditions
- Error handling and failure modes
- Unusual inputs or scenarios
- Gaps in coverage
- "What if..." scenarios
- Assumptions that might not hold
For Code: Null checks, empty arrays, max values, error handling, race conditions For Plans: Rollback strategies, blocked scenarios, resource unavailability, assumption failures For Research: Alternative explanations, conflicting evidence, unanswered questions, limitations For Issues: Acceptance criteria gaps, unclear done conditions, edge scenarios For Specs: Corner cases, conflicting requirements, missing scenarios, error states
Output:
STAGE 4: EDGE CASES
Issues Found:
[EDGE-001] [CRITICAL|HIGH|MEDIUM|LOW] - [Location]
Description: [What edge case is unhandled]
Scenario: [When this could happen]
Impact: [What goes wrong]
Recommendation: [How to handle it]
[EDGE-002] ...
Edge Case Coverage: [EXCELLENT|GOOD|FAIR|POOR]
Convergence Check (after Stage 4):
New CRITICAL issues: [count]
Total new issues: [count]
New issues vs Stage 3: [percentage change]
Estimated false positive rate: [percentage]
Status: [CONVERGED | CONTINUE]
Stage 5: EXCELLENCE - Ready to ship?
Question: Would you be proud to ship this?
Focus on:
- Final polish based on all previous stages
- Production quality assessment
- Best practices adherence
- Professional standards
- Performance and efficiency
- Completeness and thoroughness
- Overall quality for intended purpose
For Code: Performance, style, documentation, test coverage, maintainability For Plans: Implementability, completeness, TDD approach, verification steps For Research: Actionability, recommendations, references, presentation quality For Issues: Executability, priority, labels, handoff readiness For Specs: Testability, completeness, stakeholder readiness, sign-off criteria
Output:
STAGE 5: EXCELLENCE
Final Polish Issues:
[EXCL-001] [HIGH|MEDIUM|LOW] - [Location]
Description: [What could be better]
Recommendation: [How to achieve excellence]
[EXCL-002] ...
Excellence Assessment:
- Structure: [EXCELLENT|GOOD|FAIR|POOR]
- Correctness: [EXCELLENT|GOOD|FAIR|POOR]
- Clarity: [EXCELLENT|GOOD|FAIR|POOR]
- Edge Cases: [EXCELLENT|GOOD|FAIR|POOR]
- Overall: [EXCELLENT|GOOD|FAIR|POOR]
Production Ready: [YES|NO|WITH_NOTES]
Convergence Check (after Stage 5):
New CRITICAL issues: [count]
Total new issues: [count]
New issues vs Stage 4: [percentage change]
Estimated false positive rate: [percentage]
Status: [CONVERGED | NEEDS_ITERATION | ESCALATE_TO_HUMAN]
Convergence Criteria
CONVERGED if:
- No new CRITICAL issues AND
- New issue rate < 10% vs previous stage AND
- False positive rate < 20%
CONTINUE if:
- New issues found that need addressing
ESCALATE_TO_HUMAN if:
- After 5 stages, still finding CRITICAL issues OR
- Uncertain about severity or correctness OR
- False positive rate > 30%
If converged before Stage 5: Stop and report. Don't continue unnecessarily.
Final Report
After convergence or completing Stage 5:
# Rule of 5 Review - Final Report
**Work Reviewed:** [type] - [path/identifier]
**Convergence:** Stage [N]
## Summary
Total Issues by Severity:
- CRITICAL: [count] - Must fix before proceeding
- HIGH: [count] - Should fix before proceeding
- MEDIUM: [count] - Consider addressing
- LOW: [count] - Nice to have
## Top 3 Critical Findings
1. [ID] [Description] - [Location]
Impact: [Why this matters]
Fix: [What to do]
2. [ID] [Description] - [Location]
Impact: [Why this matters]
Fix: [What to do]
3. [ID] [Description] - [Location]
Impact: [Why this matters]
Fix: [What to do]
## Stage-by-Stage Quality
- Stage 1 (Draft): [Quality assessment]
- Stage 2 (Correctness): [Quality assessment]
- Stage 3 (Clarity): [Quality assessment]
- Stage 4 (Edge Cases): [Quality assessment]
- Stage 5 (Excellence): [Quality assessment]
## Recommended Actions
1. [Action 1 - specific and actionable]
2. [Action 2 - specific and actionable]
3. [Action 3 - specific and actionable]
## Verdict
[READY | NEEDS_REVISION | NEEDS_REWORK | NOT_READY]
**Rationale:** [1-2 sentences explaining the verdict]
Rules for All Stages
- Build progressively - Each stage builds on work from previous stages
- Be specific - Reference exact locations (file:line, section, paragraph)
- Provide actionable fixes - Don't just identify problems, suggest solutions
- Validate claims - Don't flag potential issues, confirm they exist
- Prioritize correctly:
- CRITICAL: Blocks use/deployment, fundamentally broken
- HIGH: Significantly impacts quality or usability
- MEDIUM: Should be addressed but not blocking
- LOW: Minor improvements
- Check convergence - Stop when new issues drop below threshold
- Don't force 5 stages - If converged earlier, report and stop