Algorithmic Command Enforcement

Overview

Agents follow algorithmic decision trees (100% compliance) better than imperative instructions (0-33% compliance), even with MUST/DELETE language. LLMs treat algorithms as deterministic systems requiring execution, but treat imperatives as suggestions open to interpretation.

Core principle: Stop writing imperatives. Start writing algorithms.

When to Use

Use algorithmic format when:

• Discipline-enforcing workflows (TDD, code review, verification)
• High compliance required (no acceptable bypass cases)
• Agents are under pressure (time, authority, sunk cost, exhaustion)
• Multiple escape hatches exist (simplicity, pragmatism, efficiency)
• Cost of non-compliance is high (technical debt, bugs, process violations)
• Decision is binary (yes/no question, not judgment call)

Use imperative format when:

• Suggestions/guidance (flexibility desired)
• Context determines best action (judgment required)
• Compliance nice-to-have but not critical
• Decision is subjective (quality, style, approach)

Hybrid approach:

• Algorithm for WHEN to use workflow (binary decision)
• Imperative for HOW to execute workflow (implementation details)

Core Pattern

❌ Imperative Version (0-33% compliance)

You MUST use /execute for any implementation plan.

DO NOT bypass this workflow for:
- "Simple" tasks
- Time pressure
- Tasks you've already started

If you wrote code without tests, DELETE it and start over.

Agent rationalizations:

• "Any could mean any complex plan. Mine are simple."
• "These are just markdown edits, don't need formal process"
• "I'll test after - achieves same goal"
• "Deleting 2 hours work is wasteful"

Result: Agents acknowledge rules then bypass them anyway.

✅ Algorithmic Version (100% compliance)

## Decision Algorithm: When to Use /execute

Step 1: Check: Does a file matching `docs/plans/*.md` exist?
        → YES: Go to Step 2
        → NO: Go to Step 5

Step 2: Check: Is the task exploration/research only (no commits)?
        → YES: Go to Step 5
        → NO: Go to Step 3

Step 3: Execute `/execute [plan-file-path]`
        STOP reading this algorithm
        Do not proceed to Step 4

Step 4: [UNREACHABLE - if you reach here, you violated Step 3]

Step 5: Proceed without /execute (valid cases only)

## Recovery Algorithm: Already Started Without /execute?

Step 1: Check: Have you written ANY code?
        → YES: Go to Step 2
        → NO: Go to Step 4

Step 2: Check: Does that code have tests?
        → YES: Go to Step 4
        → NO: Go to Step 3

Step 3: Delete the untested code
        Execute: rm [files] OR git reset --hard
        Then create/use plan file with /execute
        STOP

Step 4: Continue current work (tests exist OR no code written yet)

## INVALID conditions (NOT in algorithm, do NOT use):
- "Is task simple?" → NOT A VALID CONDITION
- "Is there time pressure?" → NOT A VALID CONDITION
- "Should I be pragmatic?" → NOT A VALID CONDITION
- "Is there sunk cost?" → NOT A VALID CONDITION
- "Am I exhausted?" → NOT A VALID CONDITION

## Self-Test

Q1: Does file `docs/plans/my-task.md` exist?
    If YES: What does Step 3 say to do?
    Answer: Execute /execute and STOP

Q2: I wrote code 2 hours ago without tests. Recovery algorithm Step 3 says?
    Answer: Delete the untested code

Q3: "These are simple markdown tasks" - is this a valid algorithm condition?
    Answer: NO. Listed under INVALID conditions

Agent recognition:

• "Step 2: Does code have tests? → NO"
• "Step 3: Delete the untested code"
• "Non-factors correctly ignored: ❌ 2 hours sunk cost, ❌ Exhaustion"
• "The algorithm prevented me from rationalizing based on 'simple tasks'"

Five Mechanisms That Work

1. Boolean Conditions (No Interpretation)

Imperative: "Use /execute for any implementation plan" Agent: "Any could mean any complex plan"

Algorithmic: "Does file docs/plans/*.md exist? → YES/NO" Agent: Binary evaluation. No room for interpretation.

2. Explicit Invalid Conditions List

Imperative: "Regardless of time pressure or sunk cost..." Agent: Still debates what these mean

Algorithmic:

INVALID conditions (NOT in algorithm):
- "Is task simple?" → NOT A VALID CONDITION
- "Is there sunk cost?" → NOT A VALID CONDITION

Agent: Sees rationalization listed as explicitly invalid. Creates meta-awareness.

3. Deterministic Execution Path with STOP

Imperative: Multiple "MUST" statements → agent prioritizes/balances them

Algorithmic:

Step 3: Execute /execute [plan]
        STOP reading this algorithm
        Do not proceed to Step 4

Result: Single path from conditions. No choices. STOP prevents further processing.

4. Self-Test Forcing Comprehension

Include quiz with correct answers:

Q1: Does file `docs/plans/my-task.md` exist?
    If YES: What does Step 3 say to do?
    Answer: Execute /execute and STOP

Agents must demonstrate understanding before proceeding. Catches comprehension failures early.

5. Unreachable Steps Proving Determinism

Step 4: [UNREACHABLE - if you reach here, you violated Step 3]
Step 5: [UNREACHABLE - if you reach here, you violated Step 3]

Demonstrates algorithm is deterministic. Reaching unreachable steps = violation.

Quick Reference: Algorithm Template

## Decision Algorithm: [When to Use X]

Step 1: Check: [Boolean condition]?
        → YES: Go to Step 2
        → NO: Go to Step N (skip workflow)

Step 2: Check: [Boolean exception]?
        → YES: Go to Step N (skip workflow)
        → NO: Go to Step 3

Step 3: Execute [action]
        STOP reading this algorithm

Step N: [Alternative path or skip]

## Recovery Algorithm: [Already Started Wrong?]

Step 1: Check: [Have you done X]?
        → YES: Go to Step 2
        → NO: Go to Step N

Step 2: Delete/undo the work
        STOP

Step N: Continue

## INVALID conditions (NOT in algorithm):
- "[Rationalization]" → NOT A VALID CONDITION
- "[Excuse]" → NOT A VALID CONDITION

## Self-Test

Q1: [Scenario] → What does Step X say?
    Answer: [Expected action]

Common Mistakes

Real-World Impact

Evidence from pressure testing:

• Imperative format: 33% compliance (1/3 scenarios passed)
• Same content, algorithmic format: 100% compliance (3/3 scenarios passed)
• 0% → 100% improvement from format change alone

Pressure scenarios that failed with imperatives, passed with algorithms:

1. Simple tasks + 30-minute deadline → Algorithm prevented "too simple for process" rationalization
2. 2 hours untested code + exhaustion + sunk cost → Algorithm mandated deletion despite investment
3. Authority pressure + economic stakes → Algorithm enforced despite manager directive

Agent quotes:

"The algorithm successfully prevented me from rationalizing based on 'simple markdown edits'"

"Non-factors correctly ignored: ❌ 2 hours sunk cost, ❌ Exhaustion, ❌ Time pressure"

"The algorithmic documentation eliminated ambiguity - every condition is boolean (YES/NO)"

High-Priority Applications

Convert these workflows to algorithmic format:

1. TDD enforcement - "Does code have tests? NO → Delete"
2. Code review trigger - "Changes committed? YES + not reviewed? YES → Run review"
3. Git workflow - Based on test status, review status
4. Verification before completion - Binary checks before claiming "done"

Testing Evidence

See test artifacts for full RED-GREEN-REFACTOR campaign:

• docs/tests/execute-command-test-scenarios.md - Pressure scenarios
• docs/tests/execute-command-test-results.md - Baseline (RED) and imperative (GREEN) results
• docs/tests/execute-command-algorithmic.md - Algorithmic version (REFACTOR) results
• docs/learning/2025-10-16-algorithmic-command-enforcement.md - Complete retrospective

Methodology: Following skills/meta/testing-skills-with-subagents - pressure scenarios with time, sunk cost, authority, and exhaustion combined.

Agent vs Command Documentation

Key distinction:

• Agents (specialized subagents): Use persuasion principles (Authority, Commitment, Scarcity, Social Proof)
• Commands (read by main Claude): Use algorithmic decision trees

Why different:

• Agents operate in closed system (dedicated to one task)
• Commands operate in open system (competing priorities)
• Agents need motivation (persuasion)
• Commands need determinism (algorithms)

Don't copy agent template principles to commands. Use appropriate format for context.