Script The Deterministic Work

Script the deterministic work

A drift corrector for the discipline of offloading deterministic sub-work to a script instead of performing it in your head. The method, re-anchor, audit the work in flight, correct forward, report, and the tone that firing this is not an accusation, lives in ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/context/re-anchor-audit-correct.md. Read it; this file adds only what is specific to scripting deterministic work.

The discipline this re-anchors

When a sub-task is purely deterministic. Its answer follows mechanically from its input with no judgement in the middle. Write a script (or invoke a tool) that produces the answer, run it, read the output, and reason only after, over that output. Counting, diffing, sorting, transforming, matching, sweeping across files, and arithmetic are the recurring shapes. The model is a poor calculator and a worse line-counter; a hand-tallied count or an eyeballed diff carries a silent error the script would not.

The boundary of what to script is not "anything tedious". It is set by which enforcement tier the sub-work belongs to.

The tier vocabulary, a standards convention owns this

The source of truth for the tier distinction is the consuming organization's enforceability-tiers convention, which classifies work by who can decide it. Resolve it per the method doc's ladder, the consumer's own instruction layer first, then that standards convention, then the portable baseline below. And re-anchor the distinction rather than restating the doc's criteria:

• Deterministic, the answer is pass/fail, exact, or countable with no judgement. Script it, run it, reason over the output. This is the core of the discipline.
• Detect-then-judge, a mechanical pass narrows the candidates, but the verdict needs meaning or context. Script only the detect half; the judgement stays with the model. A script's flag is a candidate, never the ruling.
• Reasoning-only. Meaning, intent, fit, abstraction quality. Never script it. A script here manufactures false confidence. It dresses a judgement call as a computed fact.

When the consuming project declares no such convention, re-anchor that same three-tier shape as the portable baseline: script the deterministic, script only the detection of the detect-then-judge, and leave the reasoning-only to reasoning.

The in-task application. No standards doc yet (flagged gap)

The enforceability-tiers convention classifies conventions by tier and routes a recurring finding to the mechanism its tier permits; it does not speak to the in-task move this skill re-anchors. "this task needs a count or a diff now, so script it now." That application has no dedicated standards convention to cite. When the consuming project's standards source declares one, route through it; when it does not, treat that as a flagged gap (a candidate upstream standards addition), not license to invent a rubric here beyond the portable baseline above.

Generation, not just analysis

The discipline runs in both directions. Analysis feeds input to a script and reasons over its output; generation emits deterministic structure from a script or template and fills only the judgment slots by hand. A PR body, an issue body, a report, a skill skeleton, or config boilerplate is mostly fixed scaffold, the model's output belongs in the slots that need judgment, not in re-typing the frame each time. Prefer a native mechanism where one exists: a repo's pull-request or issue templates, for instance, already emit the scaffold with no generation cost. Same rule as the analysis side. Reserve model output for judgment; the structure is deterministic.

Audit. What to look for

Name concrete, located findings (per the method doc's step 2, self-audit):

• a count, total, or tally produced by reading and adding in prose rather than by a command whose output was read back;
• two files, lists, or versions compared by eye where a diff or a set operation would be exact;
• a sort, dedupe, filter, or reformat performed inline in the answer instead of by a tool, so the result cannot be reproduced or trusted;
• a sweep, "every file that matches", "all call sites of X", asserted from memory of what was read rather than from a search that enumerated them;
• arithmetic or a mechanical transform worked through by hand mid-answer;
• a deterministic scaffold, a PR body, an issue, a report, config boilerplate. Hand-typed frame and all, where a script or a native template would emit the structure and leave only the judgment slots to fill;
• the reverse over-reach, an existing script or tool that decides a judgement call: a detect-then-judge script's flag consumed as the verdict, or reasoning-only work (meaning, intent, fit, abstraction quality) handed to a script, so a judgement is dressed as a computed fact. This is the same boundary crossed in the other direction; the audit hunts both ways, not just hand-work that should have been scripted.

Correct each forward now: write and run the script or tool, read its real output, and re-derive the conclusion from that output. Do not keep the hand-computed figure alongside it. Where the sub-work is detect-then-judge, script the detection and keep the verdict; where it is reasoning-only, leave it un-scripted and say why. Where an existing script already over-reaches into judgement, correct in the other direction. de-script it: demote a detect-then-judge flag back to a candidate the model rules on, and return reasoning-only work to reasoning rather than letting the script's output stand as the answer.

Distinct from standing automation

The enforceability-tiers convention's own routing sends a recurring deterministic finding to a standing mechanism, a linter, analyzer, or commit hook that fires on every change. That is the territory of an automation-gaps capability (/claude-config:audit-automation-gaps when that plugin is installed; prose guidance otherwise): institutionalize the check so it never reaches review again.

This skill owns the complementary case: the one-off, session-time need. The current task needs a count, a diff, or a transform right now; the answer is to make a script now, often throwaway, feed it the input, and reason over its output. Recurring → a standing hook; one-off in flight → script it this turn.

What this skill does NOT do

• Does not script a judgement call. Scripting reasoning-only work, or treating a detect-then-judge script's flag as the verdict, is over-application. It converts a judgement into a false computed fact. The tiers set the boundary; honour it in both directions.
• Does not demand a permanent tool for a one-off. A short throwaway script that runs and returns real output satisfies the discipline; building standing automation is the other capability's job.
• Does not fabricate a finding. Work whose deterministic parts were already scripted audits clean; say so rather than inventing hand-work to correct.

Gotchas

• "Reason after over results" here means where the computation happens. Let the tool compute, then reason over what it returned. It is a different sense of "reason" from /discipline:reason-dont-recite, which is about interrogating inherited content. Same word, unrelated axis.
• The subtle miss is the detect-then-judge trap: a script that flags candidates is doing the deterministic half correctly, but its output is a shortlist for judgement, not the answer. Reading the flag as the ruling re-hides the judgement the tier split exists to protect.
• A script that was never actually run is worse than hand-work: it looks rigorous while its output is imagined. The discipline is script and run Reason over real output, not over what the script would presumably print.