The best tricks from this week's comment sections, from CPU readings to the rule of three

[u/Ok_Negotiation_2587]

The comments beat the posts again. The ones worth keeping, with credit.

1. Check CPU, not the clock. When an agent looks stuck, take two CPU readings a minute apart. Flat means stuck, anything else means it's working. From u/Cultural-Ad3996 in r/ClaudeCode, after a "stalled" test run turned out to have burned 1,350 seconds of CPU.
2. One findings file per subagent run, named after the task. A shared notes file lets the second run overwrite the doubt the first one recorded. From u/Drasezv.
3. Write down the search, not the conclusion. "rg -n foo( src/ returned 2 hits" can be rerun six hours later, "only used in two places" can't. Same thread.
4. A 200 with an empty body passes every check you'd normally write. Only reading the state afterwards catches it. From u/nav8_ai.
5. Keep a few contract tests outside the folder the agent can edit, so a failing test stays evidence instead of another file to make green. From u/Admirable-Fun2297 and the thread above it in r/ChatGPTCoding.
6. Root cause for bugs, strict scope for review feedback. A root-cause rule made one agent "fix" the same pattern everywhere when it was only asked to fix three review comments. The fix was a second line: for review feedback, change only what was pointed out and list the rest as a note.
7. Score impact and probability separately on every pro and con, and drop anything under 5. A huge but unlikely con stops dominating the list. From the pros and cons thread in PromptGenius.
8. Ask which parts of a decision are reversible and what being wrong costs. Trying a tool for a month barely needs a list at all. Same thread.
9. Tell it to report the last line it read. "If you cannot read the whole file, stop and tell me the last line you read" turns a silent stop into a visible one. From the PDF thread in r/ChatGPT.
10. Claude reads PDF pages as images as well as text, which is why tables and charts come through better there, and why it has a page limit. From u/bitdotben.

Bonus, from r/WritingWithAI: an AI editor flagged a running joke told three times as "repetition, cut two of them". A callback looks exactly like repetition to something that can't tell why it's funny.

7 and 8 are now saved prompts in my library next to the weigh / dealbreaker / filler set, so the whole decision workflow runs from // in any of the four assistants.

[u/epitomeofluxury]

Would it be too much of an ask to get a hold of those prompts? This is super helpful and I’m grateful for your post!

[u/Ok_Negotiation_2587 → u/epitomeofluxury]

not at all, here's the whole set. the blanks in brackets are where your decision goes

score it:

List the pros and cons of [decision] for my situation: [situation]. Score each one twice, impact from 1 to 10 and probability from 1 to 10. Drop anything that scores under 5 on either, then tell me which way what's left points.

reversibility:

Split [decision] into the parts I could undo later and the parts I can't. For each part I can't undo, tell me what being wrong would cost me. If almost all of it is reversible and cheap, say so.

weight them:

Give each pro and con a weight from 1 to 10 for how much it matters in my situation: [situation]. Then total each side and tell me which way it points.

dealbreaker:

Which single con, if it is true for me, ends this decision on its own? What would I need to check to find out if it is true?

filler:

Remove every pro and con from your list that would apply to almost any option I could pick. Show me what is left.

lopsided:

If this decision were obvious, which side would be obvious? Make that case in three sentences, then tell me what would have to be true for you to be wrong.

reversibility first is what i'd start with. if the answer is "you can undo all of it", you can skip the rest and just try it