Harness Tuning and Evolution

Every component in a harness encodes an assumption about what the model can't do on its own. This skill guides systematic tuning to match current model capabilities.

"The space of interesting harness combinations doesn't shrink as models improve. Instead, it moves, and the interesting work for AI engineers is to keep finding the next novel combination."

When to Use

• Setting up a harness for a new model version
• Evaluator is too lenient or too harsh
• Harness feels like unnecessary overhead
• Wanting to reduce cost/latency
• Adapting an existing harness to a newer model
• After completing a harness run and reviewing results

Evaluator Calibration

The evaluator is the most critical and most fragile component.

The Core Problem

"Out of the box, Claude is a poor QA agent. In early runs, I watched it identify legitimate issues, then talk itself into deciding they weren't a big deal and approve the work anyway."

Calibration Loop

1. Run the harness on a realistic task
2. Read evaluator logs — what did it score? What did it say?
3. Compare against your judgment — where does it diverge?
4. Update the evaluator prompt to fix divergence
5. Repeat — takes several rounds before grading is reasonable

Common Failures and Fixes

Symptom	Cause	Fix
Passes everything	Default LLM generosity	Add "never give 5 unless genuinely impressed"
Identifies bugs then approves	Conflict avoidance	Add "if ANY critical issue exists, assessment is FAIL"
Scores inflate over iterations	Anchoring to previous scores	Reset score context each evaluation
Misses functional bugs	Only reads code	REQUIRE browser/API interaction before scoring
Too harsh on style	Over-indexing on craft	Reweight: functionality > originality > craft
Generic praise before issues	Politeness pattern	Add "lead with issues, not praise"

Few-Shot Calibration

Provide worked examples matching your quality bar. See references/audit-template.md for the format.

Calibrated FAIL example:

Product Depth: 2 — Form renders but validation is display-only, invalid submissions go through
Functionality: 1 — Core feature is broken
Visual Design: 3 — Looks acceptable but generic
Code Quality: 2 — No input sanitization
Overall: FAIL — Cannot ship a login that doesn't validate

Calibrated PASS example:

Product Depth: 4 — Full CRUD workflow completes end-to-end including edge cases
Functionality: 4 — All happy paths work, error handling covers expected failures
Visual Design: 3 — Clean but unremarkable — consistent spacing and colors
Code Quality: 4 — Well-structured, appropriate error handling, no security issues
Overall: PASS — Solid implementation, ready for next feature

Prompt Engineering for Criteria

The wording of grading criteria directly shapes generator behavior, independent of evaluator feedback.

Observed Effects

Criterion Wording	Effect on Output
"Museum quality"	Pushes toward polished but visually convergent designs
"Penalize AI-generated patterns"	Encourages aesthetic risk-taking
"A human designer should recognize deliberate creative choices"	Drives away from template defaults
"Usability independent of aesthetics"	Keeps functionality grounded during experimental design
"Purple gradients over white cards fail here"	Specifically steers away from common AI visual clichés

Writing Effective Criteria

1. Be specific about failure — "purple gradients over white cards" > "generic AI patterns"
2. Weight intentionally — Emphasize what the model is weak at, not what it already does well
3. Include negative examples — Show what to avoid, not just what to aim for
4. Avoid vague superlatives — "Would pass code review at a startup" > "professional quality"
5. Anticipate gaming — If the criterion says "no stubs," define what counts as a stub

Component Removal Protocol

When a new model arrives, systematically test each component:

Step 1: List Components

• Planner (prompt → spec expansion)
• Sprint decomposition (spec → sequential features)
• Sprint contracts (pre-negotiated success criteria)
• Generator self-evaluation
• Evaluator (skeptical QA)
• Context resets
• File-based handoffs
• Visual design language in spec

Step 2: Remove One at a Time

For each:

1. Remove it from the harness
2. Run the same task
3. Compare output quality (use the evaluator to grade both versions)
4. If quality holds → not load-bearing → remove it
5. If quality drops → still needed → keep it

Step 3: Document Results

Use the audit template in references/audit-template.md to record findings.

Evolution History

Real progression showing how harness simplified as models improved:

Sonnet 4.5 → Opus 4.5

• ✅ Removed: Context resets (Opus 4.5 doesn't exhibit context anxiety)
• ❌ Kept: Sprint decomposition, evaluator, planner
• Impact: Simpler harness, same quality, lower cost

Opus 4.5 → Opus 4.6

• ✅ Removed: Sprint decomposition (model maintains coherence over 2+ hour builds)
• ❌ Kept: Planner, evaluator
• Impact: Generator runs as one continuous session; most time in builder

What Persists Across All Versions

• Evaluator — Self-evaluation bias is persistent across all model versions
• Planner — Models don't naturally expand scope ambitiously from brief prompts
• File communication — Structured handoffs remain valuable for multi-agent coordination

Cost-Quality Tradeoffs

Approach	Duration	Cost	Quality
Solo agent	~20 min	~$9	Superficially impressive, core features broken
Full harness (sprints)	~6 hr	~$200	Working features, polished UI, real functionality
Simplified harness (no sprints)	~4 hr	~$125	Working features, comparable quality

DAW Build Breakdown (Opus 4.6, Simplified Harness)

Phase	Duration	Cost
Planner	4.7 min	$0.46
Build Round 1	2 hr 7 min	$71.08
QA Round 1	8.8 min	$3.24
Build Round 2	1 hr 2 min	$36.89
QA Round 2	6.8 min	$3.09
Build Round 3	10.9 min	$5.88
QA Round 3	9.6 min	$4.06
Total	3 hr 50 min	$124.70

Most time goes to the builder. QA rounds are cheap (~3-4 min, ~$3-4 each) but catch real issues.

Guidelines

• Don't add complexity speculatively — Only add components that solve observed problems
• Remove before adding — When a new model arrives, try removing components first
• The evaluator is almost always load-bearing — Self-evaluation bias persists
• The planner is usually load-bearing — Brief prompts don't naturally expand ambitiously
• Sprint decomposition is model-dependent — Test whether the current model needs it
• Context resets are model-dependent — Some models need them, newer ones usually don't

"Every component in a harness encodes an assumption about what the model can't do on its own, and those assumptions are worth stress testing."