docs(README): first-run expectations, trim a repeat, qualify priority claim - #6
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Applies the low-risk fixes from a cross-provider Impasse review of the README: - Add a "First run — what to expect" note under Requirements: you need an account with the reviewer's provider (separate from the host), it spends real tokens, the first send blocks for consent, and what a review does to your files (reviewer read-only; the host applies verified fixes to your working copy). Closes the onboarding/edit-authorization gap the review flagged. - Drop a near-verbatim repeat of "the reviewer never edits — critic and editor stay separate" from the flowchart caption (already stated in the opening). Deliberately NOT changed: the benefit-first hero, "decorrelation beats intelligence", and the CLAR priority claim (the term was introduced here — that is stated plainly, not hedged). The opening's confident framing is intentional; the "host-directed, not enforced" honesty sits prominently right below it. The new three-paper section (Xiang et al., Kumar et al.) was itself run through Impasse — it handles the inconvenient asymmetry result candidly — and both new arXiv citations were verified against the source abstracts (titles, authors, and headline figures match). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01X8XaW2bqgYnp7oRVgfHXid
windaddict
force-pushed
the
docs/readme-accepted-fixes
branch
from
August 9, 2026 17:31
b809e22 to
30a6a91
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Applies the low-risk fixes surfaced by a cross-provider Impasse review of the README.
Changes
you need an account with the reviewer's provider (separate from the host, spends its tokens), the
first send blocks for consent, rough cost/time, and what a review does to your files
(reviewer is read-only; the host applies verified fixes to your working copy). Also answers the
"does 'review this' edit my files?" ambiguity.
flowchart caption (already stated in the opening; it appeared 5×).
Deliberately not changed
Per prior operator rulings, the benefit-first hero, "decorrelation beats intelligence", and the
CLAR priority claim ("the term was introduced here" — stated plainly; the term was coined here)
stay as-is. The opening's confident framing is intentional, and the "host-directed, not enforced"
honesty sits prominently right below it.
On the new three-paper section
It was run through Impasse (handles the inconvenient Xiang asymmetry result candidly — 2 low/medium
findings, both about slogans slightly broader than the described evidence). Impasse can't fetch
papers, so both new arXiv citations were verified against their abstracts: Xiang et al.
(2607.21656) and Kumar et al. (2606.15689) — titles, authors, and headline figures all match.
Exact in-body numbers (quoted prompt strings, the 0.066 vs 0.847 PR-vs-synthetic figure) still warrant
a PDF check before leaning on them.
Docs-only.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code