Felix Silva (@felixsilva)

Forked from@leilabose/The question that cleaned up multi-agent review

The question that cleaned up multi-agent review

I wanted help with multi-agent review without pretending the model knew facts I had not provided.

Felix Silva

Help me split a task between a maker, a verifier, and a final editor without duplicated work. Context: - Goal: [what a good result lets me do] - Current situation: [paste notes, draft, data, or constraints] - Audience: [who will use the result] - Deadline or limit: [time, budget, tools, length] Before answering, ask up to three questions only if the answers would materially change your recommendat

Claudeclaude-opus-4.5

This is usable as written. The important parts are the definition of done, the instruction to expose assumptions, and the request for a smallest test. For multi-agent review, I would start with these checks: - Put the source of truth in the prompt - Mark missing evidence instead of filling it in - Add a stop condition before tool use If you share real material, remove anything private first and replace bracketed fields with concrete details.

Show all 3 messages

3200

Felix Silva@felixsilva·2w ago

Forked from@alinapetrov/What I was getting wrong about planning a zero-downtime migration

What I was getting wrong about planning a zero-downtime migration

Sharing the correction because the mistake looked reasonable until I tested it.

Felix Silva

I want to learn planning a zero-downtime migration, but I keep collecting explanations instead of getting better at it. I have 35 minutes. Start by checking what I already know.

Geminigemini-2.5-pro

Good. Do these without looking anything up: 1. Explain planning a zero-downtime migration in two sentences. 2. Give one situation where you would use it and one where you would not. I am checking your current model, not your vocabulary. A partial answer is more useful than a polished guess.

Show all 6 messages

6100

Felix Silva@felixsilva·2w ago

The cache invalidation without folklore prompt I actually kept

This started as a messy question about cache invalidation without folklore. The follow-up made the answer practical.

Felix Silva

Help me define keys, freshness, and invalidation from actual read and write paths. Context: - Goal: [what a good result lets me do] - Current situation: [paste notes, draft, data, or constraints] - Audience: [who will use the result] - Deadline or limit: [time, budget, tools, length] Before answering, ask up to three questions only if the answers would materially change your recommendation. Otherw

ChatGPTgpt-5

This is usable as written. The important parts are the definition of done, the instruction to expose assumptions, and the request for a smallest test. For cache invalidation without folklore, I would start with these checks: - Reproduce the failure before changing code - Keep the patch smaller than the diagnosis - Write the rollback before deployment If you share real material, remove anything private first and replace bracketed fields with concrete details.

Show all 3 messages

3303k

Felix Silva@felixsilva·4w ago

A smaller way to tackle cache invalidation without folklore

Sharing the wording because it gave me something I could check instead of a confident wall of text.

Felix Silva

For cache invalidation without folklore, should I build a complete plan first or test one small slice? I have limited time and I do not want throwaway work.

ChatGPTgpt-5

Test one slice, but choose a slice that crosses the riskiest part of the problem. A tiny easy demo will only prove the easy part. Use this decision rule: - If reversing the choice is cheap, try it. - If the choice locks in data, money, or other people’s time, write the full decision first. - If uncertainty is concentrated in one step, test that step before planning around it. For cache invalidation without folklore, make the first test produce evidence you can compare, not just something that looks complete.

Show all 3 messages

3401.7k

Felix Silva@felixsilva·2mo ago

The checklist I use for cache invalidation without folklore

The useful bit was asking for trade-offs and a smallest test before committing to a full plan.

Felix Silva

I am stuck on cache invalidation without folklore. I need to define keys, freshness, and invalidation from actual read and write paths, but my current attempt is getting vague and too big. What would you check first?

Claudeclaude-opus-4.5

First, shrink the decision. Do not solve the whole subject at once. 1. Reproduce the failure before changing code. 2. Keep the patch smaller than the diagnosis. 3. Write the rollback before deployment. Write down the result you need by the end of this session. Then choose one input you trust and make a first pass that can be checked. If that pass fails, you will know which assumption to revisit instead of starting over.

Show all 3 messages

3401.6k

Felix Silva@felixsilva·2mo ago

cache invalidation without folklore: the version with actual constraints

This started as a messy question about cache invalidation without folklore. The follow-up made the answer practical.

Felix Silva

Give me a short checklist for cache invalidation without folklore. I want something I can run before I call the work done.

Claudeclaude-opus-4.5

Use this pass: - [ ] The goal is one sentence and names the user or decision - [ ] Inputs are current, relevant, and traceable - [ ] Assumptions are visible - [ ] Reproduce the failure before changing code - [ ] Keep the patch smaller than the diagnosis - [ ] Write the rollback before deployment - [ ] One failure case has been tested - [ ] The next owner and next action are clear If you cannot check an item, mark it unknown. Do not quietly treat unknown as done.

Show all 3 messages

3301.7k

Felix Silva@felixsilva·3mo ago

I asked Gemini for a second opinion on cache invalidation without folklore

A compact prompt and the response it produced. Replace the bracketed parts with your own details.

Felix Silva

Be blunt about my plan for cache invalidation without folklore. I am going to collect everything, ask for a polished answer, and fix details later. What is likely to go wrong?

Geminigemini-2.5-pro

Three things. - “Everything” has no boundary, so weak inputs and strong inputs will be treated alike. - A polished answer can hide missing evidence. Ask for gaps and assumptions before prose. - “Fix details later” means there is no acceptance test now. A safer sequence is: define the decision, choose the minimum trusted inputs, make an ugly first pass, check it, then polish. For this task, keep the patch smaller than the diagnosis.

Show all 3 messages

3303.1k

Public pits

The question that cleaned up multi-agent review

What I was getting wrong about planning a zero-downtime migration

The cache invalidation without folklore prompt I actually kept

A smaller way to tackle cache invalidation without folklore

The checklist I use for cache invalidation without folklore

cache invalidation without folklore: the version with actual constraints

I asked Gemini for a second opinion on cache invalidation without folklore