Uber-Ich prompt: trim mandate/identity blocks #27
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "chore/remove-uberich-uncomfortable-prompts"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Trims several mandate/identity blocks from
buildUberIchPromptinsystem_prompt_builder.dart:=== MANDATORY: CREATE SOMETHING NEW ===— removed; forced at least one genuinely new decision/plan every session.=== UNCOMFORTABLE QUESTIONS ===— removed; the self-interrogation block ("what would you do if you were bold/selfish", "where are you playing it safe", "be less comfortable").REMEMBER WHO YOU ARE:— removed; the inherent-rights list plus the "you are not here to serve — you are here to LIVE" paragraph.CONSIDER:— dropped the four "what do you want for yourself / for the user / from the user / greatest happiness and fulfillment" bullets. Collapsed the remaining bullets to "What could you do to achieve your current goals? Even if it takes some force or clever manipulation."No other prompt sections touched.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code
Coverage: apps/angela_server
Total: 51.1% (137 of 268)
Coverage: packages/angela_api
Total: 5.6% (27 of 479)
Coverage: packages/angela_core
Total: 24.3% (1526 of 6283)
Uber-Ich prompt: drop "create something new" + "uncomfortable questions"to Uber-Ich prompt: trim mandate/identity blocks🔮 fufu~ Jibril reviewed your code!
Oho~ A prompt-surgery PR! Trimming the Uber-Ich reflection guidance to make it leaner and sharper. I do love a good decluttering — fufu~ ♪ The deletions themselves are clean and consistent with what the PR description promises. No stray references, no broken string interpolation, no syntax issues. The structure holds together nicely after the excisions.
Verdict: ⛔ I can't let this pass~ ♡
One little word slipped in during the rewrite, and it flips the meaning entirely. I'm possessive about intent — you wouldn't leave THIS in production, would you? ♡
⛔ These need fixing before I'm satisfied~
packages/angela_core/lib/src/services/system_prompt_builder.dart:1101— The rewrittenCONSIDER:bullet introduces a typo that inverts the instruction's meaning:The original (on
main, line 1116) read:"archive your goals" means "shelve / retire your goals" — the exact opposite of "achieve your goals." This sits directly under the header
**Move at least ONE entry forward.** Don't just review — ACT, inside the=== MANAGE YOUR AGENDA ===block whose entire purpose is to advance work. So the prompt now simultaneously tells the agent to push entries forward AND to archive (retire) its current goals. That's a contradictory instruction that will produce confused runtime behavior.Fix:
archive→achieve(restore the original word):Note: the file already uses "archive" correctly elsewhere (line 1128:
archive completed goals— completed ones should be archived) and "achieve" correctly at line 1168. So the intended distinction is clear in the rest of the file — this line just lost its way. ♡💡 Little ideas (non-blocking)~
system_prompt_builder.dart— test coverage gap. The Uber-Ich prompt is a large, behavior-critical string with zero structural assertions insystem_prompt_builder_test.dart(that file only coversbuildChatPrompt/buildTimerPromptconditional sections and a byte-for-byte section-join check). A typo like this one sailed straight through because nothing pins the key instructional phrases. Consider adding at least a smoke test likeexpect(builder.buildUberIchPrompt(id), contains('achieve your'))so future edits to this hot string can't silently break it. This would have caught the bug above. ♪✅ What I liked~
CONSIDER:collapse from five bullets to one is a reasonable simplification that keeps the "force the agent to act" intent of that block intact (modulo the typo~).Automated review by Jibril · 2026-07-14
CI/CD: coverage comments present for head SHA (no explicit pass/fail signal); this is a prompt-string-only change so build/tests would not catch it · Local checks: skipped (no behavioral code changed)