AI Practice

Series: Classic Theory Meets Agent Practice (Part 2) Previous: Dual-Pass Review: Why Recall and Precision Cannot Both Win TL;DR: A review prompt went from 317 lines to 135 lines (-58%), and review quality improved by 29%. What I removed was not useful procedure, but redundant content the model could infer on its own. What stayed were strategy genes: irreplaceable constraints, negative examples, and tone locks. The previous post covered dual-pass review: splitting one review agent into a “find everything” pass and a “filter hard” pass. Valid find rate went from 75% to 92%. But it left one problem open: what the “find everything” pass chooses to report or ignore is still affected by prompt wording. ...

Series: Classic Theory Meets Agent Practice (Part 1) TL;DR: A design review agent needs to find every issue AND avoid false positives. One agent can’t do both. Borrowing cascade retrieval from information retrieval — a 15-year-old method — I split it into two: a Recall Pass that casts a wide net, and a Precision Pass that filters strictly. Real defects get caught earlier, and the risk of rework during development drops. ...

Series: Breaking to Build: TDD Process Iterations (Post 3) Post 1: What a Failed Experiment Got Right · Post 2: Using the Method to Improve the Method TL;DR: Phase 6 already does diagnostics at the integration level — drilling into each bug’s root cause. What it doesn’t do: cross-defect pattern scanning, component gap checking, execution order analysis. Those belong to Phase 7. In small systems, Phase 7 catches a few more bugs. As the system grows, those same three tasks produce something different — building test infrastructure, hardening CI rules, driving architectural evolution. Phase 7 doesn’t make architecture decisions. But it provides the scarcest input for those decisions: evidence-based problem localization. ...

Series: Breaking to Build: TDD Process Iterations (second post) Previous: What a Failed Experiment Got Right TL;DR: The TDD Pipeline taught “give principles, not steps” — but it had grown into a step-driven tool itself. I stripped the operational steps from Phases 1 through 5, keeping only principles, risk hints, and counterexamples. The model independently derived the steps I had deleted. Output quality held. The reason: Phases 1 through 5 are creative phases that need room to diverge. Removing the fixed track actually helped. The same strategy failed on Phase 6 — next post explains why. ...

Series: Breaking to Build: TDD Process Iterations (first post) TL;DR: I refined Phase 6 (pre-release testing) of the TDD Pipeline from step-driven to principle-driven. The goal was better output. I didn’t get it — the refined version was worse at drilling into individual bugs and building evidence chains. But comparing the two outputs revealed dimensional differences. The refined version was better at component gap checking and cross-bug pattern scanning. Those differences pointed to a judgment call: Phase 6 doesn’t need refining. It needs a layer on top of it. That layer later became Phase 7. ...

TL;DR: Before-and-after comparison of the upgraded Why Articulation template, plus three transferable lessons: give principles not examples, lock critical steps with mandatory tone, and trust the model’s self-organization. Experiment limitations included. Series: Why Make AI Articulate Why Before Acting (Article 3) Previous: A 4-Variable A/B Test — Why Positive Examples Harm Prompt Performance Recap Article 1 started from Anthropic’s alignment research: teaching a model why rather than what cut misalignment from 22% to 3% (about 7×), and achieved equivalent results with 1/28 the data [1]. I adapted this into Why Articulation — a mechanism that forces AI to explain purpose, risks, and approach before writing any code. ...

TL;DR: A 4-variable A/B test on Why Articulation — structure, tone, position, and examples. Positive examples made output worse. The model imitated instead of reasoning. Open-ended prompts improved quality directionally and cut tokens by 33%. Series: Why Make AI Articulate Why Before Acting (Article 2) Previous: From Anthropic’s Alignment Research to a Prompt Design Insight Where We Left Off Anthropic’s alignment research [1] landed on a sharp insight: teaching a model why beats telling it what. I took that idea and built Why Articulation into my TDD Pipeline — a mechanism that forces the model to explain its understanding before it writes any code. Early results looked good. ...

TL;DR: Anthropic’s alignment research shows that teaching a model why works better than teaching it what — misalignment dropped from 22% to 3%. This post breaks down four experiments and distills three lessons you can use in prompt design. I ran an A/B test comparing two prompt strategies. One group got positive examples — “do it like this.” The other got no examples. Instead, the AI had to explain why a choice was correct before acting on it. ...

TL;DR: How does a person grow with AI? This post maps the journey from “opening a chat box for the first time” to “thinking in AI-native ways” across five stages—First Contact, Power User, Engineer, Architect, and Native. The essence of each stage isn’t learning more tools, but a shift in mindset: from passively accepting outputs, to actively designing inputs, to orchestrating multi-agent collaboration, and ultimately reshaping your own cognitive framework. The interactive path map at the end lets you explore each stage in full detail. ...

TL;DR: git rebase / checkout silently deletes untracked files in .gitignore, with no recovery; git stash -u does NOT stash git-ignored files. The fix: use git worktree to create a local-assets branch, storing design docs in a git-tracked safe space. Three commands handle daily use: dp-save.sh to save, --prune to clean, --restore to recover. Real project data shows zero document loss after introducing worktree. Full script at alexwwang/design-doc-worktree. One afternoon I had AI run git rebase -i to tidy up the last dozen commits. No conflicts. Clean terminal. Everything went smoothly. ...