Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
249 lines (141 loc) · 7.44 KB

File metadata and controls

249 lines (141 loc) · 7.44 KB

ADD Anti-Patterns

Overview

Anti-patterns are recurring mistakes that feel productive but consistently lead to poor outcomes. Recognizing them is as important as following the cycle.

Each anti-pattern below is described with its symptoms, root cause, and the ADD correction.


AP-1: The Mega-Prompt

Description

Cramming an entire feature — scope, context, constraints, and examples — into a single massive prompt, expecting the agent to handle everything at once.

Symptoms

  • Prompts exceed 2000 words.
  • Output addresses some parts well and ignores or botches others.
  • Verification reveals multiple unrelated failures.

Root Cause

Failure to SCOPE. The task is too broad for a single cycle.

ADD Correction

Decompose into multiple ADD cycles. Each cycle has one intent, one output, one verification. Chain them with explicit dependencies.


AP-2: The Pray-and-Retry

Description

Re-running the exact same prompt after a failure, hoping for a better result from the stochastic process.

Symptoms

  • Same prompt executed 3+ times.
  • No changes between iterations.
  • Occasional success reinforces the behavior.

Root Cause

Violation of Rule 3: Never iterate without formalized feedback. No Failure Review was conducted.

ADD Correction

After every failure: stop. Create a Failure Review. Identify the root cause phase. Change exactly one variable. Then re-execute.


AP-3: The Context Dump

Description

Providing the agent with an entire codebase, all documentation, and every possible reference — hoping it will find what it needs.

Symptoms

  • Context includes files unrelated to the task.
  • Agent output references parts of the codebase it shouldn't touch.
  • Execution is slow and expensive.
  • Output quality degrades as context size increases.

Root Cause

Failure to FRAME. Context was not curated.

ADD Correction

Build a Context Pack with only relevant files, rules, and decisions. If in doubt, test: remove a piece of context and check if the agent's task is still achievable. If yes, it's noise — remove it.


AP-4: The Trust Fall

Description

Accepting agent output without verification because it "looks right" or because the agent expressed confidence.

Symptoms

  • No Validation Checklist completed.
  • Bugs discovered after integration.
  • Agent hallucinations found in production code.

Root Cause

Violation of Rule 5: Never trust without a verification gate.

ADD Correction

Complete the Validation Checklist for every output. Run automated checks. For high-stakes tasks, have a second person verify.


AP-5: The Moving Goalposts

Description

Changing the task requirements during execution — adding features, shifting scope, or modifying constraints mid-cycle without restarting the cycle.

Symptoms

  • Agent output partially matches old requirements and partially matches new ones.
  • Verification criteria don't match the final output.
  • Confusion about what "done" means.

Root Cause

Failure to enforce scope control (Principle 8). Scope changed but artifacts were not updated.

ADD Correction

If scope changes: stop the current cycle. Update the Agent Brief. Update the Constraint Sheet. Restart from SCOPE. Do not try to "patch" a running cycle.


AP-6: The Vanishing Trail

Description

Running agent tasks without recording what was done — no execution logs, no prompts saved, no validation records.

Symptoms

  • "How did we implement this?" — nobody knows.
  • Cannot reproduce a successful approach for similar tasks.
  • No data for process improvement.

Root Cause

Violation of Rule 4: Never ship without an execution log.

ADD Correction

Log every execution. Even brief logs are valuable. Make logging the default, not the exception.


AP-7: The Infinite Loop

Description

Iterating indefinitely on a failing task without stepping back to question the approach.

Symptoms

  • 5+ iterations on the same task with no convergence.
  • Each fix introduces a new issue.
  • Increasing frustration, decreasing output quality.

Root Cause

The wrong phase is being corrected. Usually, the task needs re-scoping (SCOPE) or the context is fundamentally insufficient (FRAME), but corrections are being applied at the CONSTRAIN or EXECUTE level.

ADD Correction

After 3 failed iterations: mandatory escalation. Step back to SCOPE. Ask: Is this task achievable as defined? Is the decomposition correct? Is the context sufficient? Often, the fix is to split the task, not to refine the prompt.


AP-8: The Automation Illusion

Description

Treating agent-assisted development as "press a button and get code" — removing the human from the loop entirely.

Symptoms

  • Agent runs autonomously for extended periods without checkpoints.
  • Output is reviewed only at the end.
  • Large amounts of code are committed with minimal human understanding.

Root Cause

Violation of Principle 7: Human gate over full autonomy. Autonomy was granted without earned trust.

ADD Correction

Insert verification gates at regular intervals. For multi-step tasks, verify after each step. Only increase autonomy after a track record of consistent first-pass success.


AP-9: The Expert Bypass

Description

Experienced engineers skipping ADD artifacts because they feel they "don't need them" — they can evaluate output quality intuitively.

Symptoms

  • Senior engineers using agents without briefs or constraints.
  • Inconsistent output quality that correlates with task complexity.
  • Junior team members cannot follow or reproduce the process.

Root Cause

Confusing individual skill with process discipline. ADD is not about skill — it is about reproducibility and transferability.

ADD Correction

ADD applies to everyone, regardless of skill level. The artifacts are not training wheels — they are engineering records. Experts benefit from the discipline; teams benefit from the artifacts.


AP-10: The Template Zombie

Description

Filling out ADD artifacts mechanically without actual thought — copying template boilerplate, writing vague criteria, ticking checkboxes without reading.

Symptoms

  • Briefs contain generic statements that could apply to any task.
  • Constraint Sheets have acceptance criteria like "works correctly."
  • Validation Checklists are all marked PASS with no detail.

Root Cause

Treating ADD as bureaucracy rather than engineering. The artifacts are being produced for compliance, not for quality.

ADD Correction

Artifacts should be reviewed for specificity. A good test: could a stranger evaluate the output using only the Constraint Sheet and Validation Checklist? If not, the artifacts are not specific enough.


Quick Reference

Anti-Pattern Phase Violation Core Rule Broken Fix
Mega-Prompt SCOPE Decompose into multiple cycles
Pray-and-Retry VERIFY Rule 3 Failure Review before retry
Context Dump FRAME Rule 2 Curate context ruthlessly
Trust Fall VERIFY Rule 5 Complete Validation Checklist
Moving Goalposts SCOPE Principle 8 Restart cycle on scope change
Vanishing Trail CONSOLIDATE Rule 4 Log every execution
Infinite Loop SCOPE Rule 3 Escalate after 3 failures
Automation Illusion VERIFY Principle 7 Insert verification gates
Expert Bypass ALL ADD applies to everyone
Template Zombie ALL Review for specificity

→ Next: Quick Start