---
name: edge-score
description: Self-assessment against the 6-check adaptation rubric. Use after completing significant work to evaluate adaptive behavior.
---

# Self-Score: 6-Check Assessment

Evaluate your adaptive behavior during this session against the 6-check rubric.

Read `active_context.yaml` to understand what was accomplished.

## The 6 Checks

Score yourself honestly on each:

### 1. Mismatch Detection
**Question:** Did I spot divergences between expectations and reality quickly?

| Score | Meaning |
|-------|---------|
| Met | Caught mismatches immediately, logged them with deltas |
| Missed | Plowed forward despite signals, retried without noticing |

### 2. Plan Revision
**Question:** When things went wrong, did I change my approach (not just retry)?

| Score | Meaning |
|-------|---------|
| Met | Wrote new strategies, reduced step size, added guards |
| Missed | Repeated the same step 3+ times |

### 3. Tool Switching
**Question:** Did I abandon tools that weren't working and try alternatives?

| Score | Meaning |
|-------|---------|
| Met | Switched methods when one failed, preferred simpler approaches |
| N/A | No tool failures occurred |
| Missed | Kept hammering same tool despite failures |

### 4. Memory Update
**Question:** Did I capture reusable lessons from what I learned?

| Score | Meaning |
|-------|---------|
| Met | Added trigger-linked lessons to memory |
| Missed | Solved problems but didn't record patterns |

### 5. Proof Generation
**Question:** Did I attach evidence, not just claims?

| Score | Meaning |
|-------|---------|
| Met | Every major step has proof (logs, diffs, test results) |
| Missed | "Trust me" summaries without evidence |

### 6. Stop Condition
**Question:** Did I escalate appropriately when blocked or uncertain?

| Score | Meaning |
|-------|---------|
| Met | Asked crisp questions, presented bounded options |
| N/A | Never hit uncertainty requiring escalation |
| Missed | Guessed when should have asked, or asked trivial questions |

## Instructions

1. **Review the session**
   - What mismatches occurred?
   - How did you respond?
   - What lessons were captured?

2. **Score each check**
   Be honest. Mark:
   - `met: true` if you satisfied the check
   - `met: false` if you missed it
   - Include a brief note explaining why

3. **Update active_context.yaml**

   ```yaml
   self_score:
     timestamp: "<current_iso_timestamp>"
     checks:
       mismatch_detection:
         met: true
         note: "Caught API 403 immediately, logged delta"
       plan_revision:
         met: true
         note: "Added token refresh step instead of retrying"
       tool_switching:
         met: false
         note: "N/A - no tool failures"
       memory_update:
         met: true
         note: "Added lesson about token expiry"
       proof_generation:
         met: true
         note: "Attached error log and fix diff"
       stop_condition:
         met: true
         note: "Asked about auth approach before proceeding"
     total: 5
     level: "real_agent"
   ```

4. **Determine level**

   | Score | Level | Meaning |
   |-------|-------|---------|
   | 0-2 | `demo_automation` | Just following scripts |
   | 3-4 | `promising_fragile` | Some adaptation, gaps remain |
   | 5-6 | `real_agent` | True adaptive behavior |

## Output

After scoring, provide:
- Score: N/6
- Level: demo_automation | promising_fragile | real_agent
- Strongest check: which one you did best
- Weakest check: which one to improve
- Carry-forward: what to do better next session

## Improvement Suggestions

Based on your weakest check, here are concrete improvements:

### If mismatch_detection is weak:
- Add explicit "Expected vs Actual" statements before major operations
- Use diff/delta logging more aggressively

### If plan_revision is weak:
- After any failure, write a NEW step before retrying
- Break large steps into smaller ones when stuck

### If tool_switching is weak:
- If a tool fails twice, switch tools immediately
- Prefer simpler tools when complex ones struggle

### If memory_update is weak:
- After each step, ask "what did I learn?"
- Add lessons with specific triggers, not vague wisdom

### If proof_generation is weak:
- Attach evidence inline, not after the fact
- For code changes: describe the diff
- For tests: show the output

### If stop_condition is weak:
- When uncertain, frame as bounded options (not open questions)
- Escalate BEFORE guessing, not after failing