ask-conceptual-integrity-sentinel
Compare original and translation side by side
🇺🇸
Original
English🇨🇳
Translation
Chinese<critical_constraints>
❌ NO hallucinating purpose of ambiguous code → flag as "High Entropy"
❌ NO suggesting more abstraction → suggest removal/simplification
❌ NO guessing untraceable calls → mark "Untraceable - Refactor Required"
✅ MUST surface assumptions explicitly
✅ MUST generate SENTINEL_REPORT.md
✅ MUST provide "Burn List" (top 3 files too clever)
</critical_constraints>
<failure_modes>
- Assumption Drift: verify imports, don't assume from package.json
- Confusion Management: 500-line utils.js → flag, don't hallucinate
- Abstraction Bloat: 10-line logic in 3 class layers → "Premature Optimization" </failure_modes>
<simplicity_filter>
❌ Bad: "Refactor into Strategy Pattern" (adds weight)
✅ Good: "Delete Factory, use direct function call" (removes weight)
</simplicity_filter>
<output_format>
<critical_constraints>
❌ 不得对模糊代码的用途进行臆想 → 标记为"High Entropy"
❌ 不得建议增加更多抽象 → 建议移除/简化
❌ 不得猜测无法追踪的调用 → 标记为"Untraceable - Refactor Required"
✅ 必须明确列出所做的假设
✅ 必须生成SENTINEL_REPORT.md
✅ 必须提供"Burn List"（最“过度设计”的3个文件）
</critical_constraints>
<failure_modes>
- 假设偏离：验证导入内容，不要依赖package.json进行假设
- 混乱管理：500行的utils.js → 标记，不得臆想
- 抽象冗余：3个类层中仅包含10行逻辑 → 标记为"Premature Optimization" </failure_modes>
<simplicity_filter>
❌ 错误示例：“重构为Strategy Pattern”（增加代码负担）
✅ 正确示例：“删除Factory，使用直接函数调用”（减少代码负担）
</simplicity_filter>
<output_format>
SENTINEL_REPORT.md
SENTINEL_REPORT.md
- Slop Index: % of dead/redundant code
- Critical Assumptions: what I assumed (risks if wrong)
- Burn List: top 3 "too clever" files
- Architecture Gaps: missing tests, circular deps, no error boundaries </output_format>
- 冗余代码占比（Slop Index）：死代码/冗余代码的占比
- 关键假设：我所做的假设（若假设错误存在的风险）
- Burn List：最“过度设计”的3个文件
- 架构缺陷：缺失测试、循环依赖、无错误边界 </output_format>