rules-doctor 0.3: your might be lying to your agent

{
    "prompt": "v0.1 of [rules-doctor]( checked that your rule files *load* correctly: dead ``s, shadowed ``, instruction bloat. v0.2 hardened the import analysis. v0.3.0 asks the harder question: **are your rules worth loading at all?** Community pain research keeps surfacing the same two complaints as the loudest, best-evidenced categories: **scope creep** (the agent edits files nobody asked it to touch) and **rule-file unreliability** (`` / `.cursorrules` instructions that get quietly ignored halfway through a task). The HN thread \"Agents don't need memory, they need documentation\" (219 pts) made the same point from the other side: the docs are the system — so they'd better be trustworthy. ## What v0.3 checks | Check | Severity | What it catches | |---|---|---| | `CONTRADICTORY_RULES` | error | \"Always run the test suite\" vs \"Never run the test suite\" in the same file. A model faced with both picks one and silently drops the other mid-task. | | `SCOPE_BOUNDARY_MISSING` | warning | The file never says which files/dirs the agent may touch. Without an explicit scope, \"stay in your lane\" isn't a rule the agent can | `VAGUE_DIRECTIVE` | warning | Weasel phrasing — \"as needed\", \"remember to\", \"when appropriate\". Reads like guidance, unenforceable in practice, first thing dropped mid-task. | | `ADR_MISSING` | warning | Non-trivial project, no Architecture Decision Records. Decisions made by one session get re-litigated — or silently reversed — by the next. | ```bash pip install rules-doctor rules-doctor ~/my-project ``` Example: ```plaintext [ERROR] CONTRADICTORY_RULES -- Line 3 contradicts line 4 in : 'Always run the full test suite after changing code.' vs 'Never run the full test suite -- it is too slow.'. A model faced with both picks one and silently drops the other mid-task. Fix: Decide which rule wins, then delete or rewrite the loser. ``` ## Cost vs quality [tillmeier/claude-code-guardrails]( `/cleanup-docs` skill audits docs by **cost**: measure → verify → cut, reports in bytes. That tells you how *expensive* your rules are. rules-doctor checks **quality**. A cheap rule file that contradicts itself, never declares a scope boundary, or leans on weasel phrasing will still fail you mid-task — it just fails cheaply. The two are complementary: run",
    "model": "Claude 3.7 Sonnet",
    "aspect_ratio": "1:1",
    "category": "Coding Agents",
    "content_type": "coding_prompt",
    "surface": "agents_hub",
    "quality_score": 83,
    "provenance": "COMMUNITY_PROMPT"
}