frontier

frontier

Make Claude Opus, Sonnet, GPT, or Gemini produce work close to what Claude Fable 5 would ship: Fable 5 itself wrote and audited these 21 standards, so the model you already have executes against its bar. One response gets the lift; the optional convergence loop and taste gate carry work that must be right.

/frontier <deliverable> [quick|full|gate]

Why · Output · One response · How · Inside · Install · Cost · Compared · Limits · FAQ

Before release, this system was turned on itself, and it did not pass on the first try. The distillation run is the adversarial audit of the standards themselves; the self-run publishes every gate verdict this README received, failures first, with the fixes each one forced.

Quality is a procedure, not a property

Ask a model to "make it great" and you get its training-data average: the same hero layout, the same "seamlessly leverage" copy, the same confident report nobody verified. The gap between that and frontier output is mostly not intelligence. It is method: strong models define the standard before generating, sample several attempts instead of polishing the first, verify against real evidence with fresh eyes, and refuse to stop at "looks done".

Method can be written down. frontier is that method, packaged: one command that runs any task through written quality standards, independent candidate generation, evidence-grounded verification sweeps, and a final taste judgment, until the work converges instead of merely ending.

Output is parseable findings, not vibes

Verifier findings arrive pinned to a location and a rubric line, in a fixed shape a script (or a tired human) can walk (quoted from the sample run):

LENS: layout
FINDINGS:
1. tiers section, 768px | comparison table scannable in 15s | table forces horizontal scroll at tablet width | confidence: h
2. hero, 390x844 | claim + CTA in first viewport | CTA sits 64px below the fold on mobile | confidence: h
3. tier cards | one primary action per view | "Start free" and "Book a demo" carry equal visual weight on the Studio tier | confidence: h
CHECKED: rubric lines 1, 2, 6, 7 via screenshots at three widths, cropped
NOT CHECKABLE: line 5 (FAQ content is the copy lens)

The taste gate's block, from the same run:

GATE: fail
FINDINGS:
1. tier names | brand owner | "Starter, Growth, Studio" could be any SaaS; the product voice is trade-specific everywhere else | rename from the studio world | confidence: m
2. annual toggle | first-time audience | eye lands on the calculator, then tiers; the toggle registers on second read only | move it into the tier-card header row | confidence: h
RANKING: n/a
DISTILL:
- marketing.md candidate: pricing toggles live where the eye decides (the tier header),
  not above the section; a toggle seen after the price anchors monthly

An empty findings list is itself a claim: it means every rubric line was actively checked and nothing surfaced. A full run, end to end: examples/sample-run.md. The real thing, run on this repo: examples/self-run.md.

It works in a single response