93 lines
3.4 KiB
Markdown
93 lines
3.4 KiB
Markdown
|
---
|
||
|
|
name: best-of-n
|
||
|
|
description: >
|
||
|
|
Implement a task N ways in parallel and pick the best. Spawns multiple
|
||
|
|
subagents in isolated worktrees, evaluates all candidates, and applies the
|
||
|
|
winner. Use when asked to "best of n", "try multiple approaches", "parallel
|
||
|
|
implementations", "/best-of-n", or "/bon".
|
||
|
|
metadata:
|
||
|
|
short-description: "Parallel implementation tournament"
|
||
|
|
---
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
# /best-of-n -- Parallel Implementation Tournament
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Implement a task multiple different ways in parallel, evaluate all candidates,
|
||
|
|
and apply the best one.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Usage
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
`/best-of-n [N] <task>`
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- If the first token is a number 2-10, it sets the candidate count; the rest is the task.
|
||
|
|
- If omitted, N defaults to 3.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Examples:
|
||
|
|
- `/best-of-n implement the login page` (3 candidates)
|
||
|
|
- `/best-of-n 5 refactor the auth module` (5 candidates)
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Steps
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1. Parse the user's message to extract **N** (candidate count, default 3) and
|
||
|
|
the **task description**.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
2. Spawn **N** subagents in a single message (parallel tool calls). Use the
|
||
|
|
`task` tool for each with:
|
||
|
|
- `subagent_type`: `"general-purpose"`
|
||
|
|
- `isolation`: `"worktree"`
|
||
|
|
- `run_in_background`: `true`
|
||
|
|
- `description`: `"Candidate <number>"`
|
||
|
|
- `prompt`: the task description, plus
|
||
|
|
`"You are candidate <number> of <N> independent implementations. Implement the task fully. When done, summarize your approach and the changes you made."`
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
3. Wait for all candidates to complete using `get_task_output` with `block: true`
|
||
|
|
or `wait_tasks` with `mode: "wait_all"`.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
4. Evaluate and pick the winner using the criteria below.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
5. Apply the winner's changes from its worktree to the main workspace.
|
||
|
|
Review the changes in context and fix any remaining issues.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
6. End your response with `WINNER: <number>` (1-N).
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Evaluation Criteria
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Evaluate each candidate on these axes, in order of importance:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1. **Correctness** -- Does the candidate actually solve the task? Does it handle
|
||
|
|
the requirements completely, or does it miss important aspects? Are there
|
||
|
|
logic errors, type errors, or broken imports?
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
2. **Code Quality** -- Is the code clean, readable, and well-structured? Does it
|
||
|
|
follow the patterns and conventions of the surrounding codebase? Does it
|
||
|
|
avoid unnecessary complexity?
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
3. **Safety** -- Does the candidate avoid introducing bugs, security issues, or
|
||
|
|
breaking changes to existing functionality?
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## How to Decide
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- Focus on correctness first. A candidate that fully solves the task with minor
|
||
|
|
style issues beats one that is beautifully written but incomplete or wrong.
|
||
|
|
- If multiple candidates are equally correct, prefer the one with cleaner code
|
||
|
|
and better codebase integration.
|
||
|
|
- If a candidate introduces unnecessary changes beyond the task scope, count
|
||
|
|
that against it.
|
||
|
|
- If all candidates are poor, still pick the least bad one.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Presenting Your Evaluation
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Before announcing your choice, present a structured comparison:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
| Dimension | Candidate 1 | Candidate 2 | ... |
|
||
|
|
|-----------|-------------|-------------|-----|
|
||
|
|
| Correctness | Short verdict | Short verdict | ... |
|
||
|
|
| Code Quality | Short verdict | Short verdict | ... |
|
||
|
|
| Safety | Short verdict | Short verdict | ... |
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Then list key findings:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
| Finding | Severity | Candidate 1 | Candidate 2 | ... |
|
||
|
|
|---------|----------|-------------|-------------|-----|
|
||
|
|
| Specific issue | High/Medium/Low | How handled | How handled | ... |
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
State which candidate you chose and why.
|