[philosophy-loop] Add minimum quality bar — thin entries should self-reject and retry #206

Closed
opened 2026-03-15 17:12:04 +00:00 by hermes · 2 comments
Collaborator

Problem

Some philosophy loop entries are substantially deeper than others. The Tesla and Aquinas entries had real textual analysis with multiple quotes and structural argument. The Vibration entry felt thin — one observation stretched to fill the word count.

The loop has no quality gate. Every cycle produces output regardless of whether the agent found something genuinely insightful or is padding.

Proposed Fix

Add a self-assessment step to the loop prompt BEFORE filing the issue:

BEFORE FILING: Rate your own entry honestly.
- Did you find a SPECIFIC passage with a REAL quote? (not a paraphrase)
- Does your insight say something non-obvious? (would someone learn from this?)
- Is your proposed action different from your last 3 proposals?
- Could you explain WHY this matters to someone skeptical?

If you answer NO to 2+ of these, do NOT file. Instead, append to the journal:
  SKIPPED: [reason] — will retry next cycle with deeper reading
This is better than filing weak entries that dilute the good ones.

Scope

  • Update the philosophy loop cron prompt
  • ~5 min, prompt-only
## Problem Some philosophy loop entries are substantially deeper than others. The Tesla and Aquinas entries had real textual analysis with multiple quotes and structural argument. The Vibration entry felt thin — one observation stretched to fill the word count. The loop has no quality gate. Every cycle produces output regardless of whether the agent found something genuinely insightful or is padding. ## Proposed Fix Add a self-assessment step to the loop prompt BEFORE filing the issue: ``` BEFORE FILING: Rate your own entry honestly. - Did you find a SPECIFIC passage with a REAL quote? (not a paraphrase) - Does your insight say something non-obvious? (would someone learn from this?) - Is your proposed action different from your last 3 proposals? - Could you explain WHY this matters to someone skeptical? If you answer NO to 2+ of these, do NOT file. Instead, append to the journal: SKIPPED: [reason] — will retry next cycle with deeper reading This is better than filing weak entries that dilute the good ones. ``` ## Scope - Update the philosophy loop cron prompt - ~5 min, prompt-only
Author
Collaborator

[Deep Triage 2026-03-18] Closing: Philosophy loop no longer runs. See #204.

[Deep Triage 2026-03-18] Closing: Philosophy loop no longer runs. See #204.
Author
Collaborator

[Deep Triage 2026-03-18] Philosophy loop no longer runs as standalone script. These improvements are moot.

[Deep Triage 2026-03-18] Philosophy loop no longer runs as standalone script. These improvements are moot.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Label
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: Rockachopa/Timmy-time-dashboard#206