Personal benchmark paragraph — revision

GPT-6.1 SolCodex CLIhigh effortrun 1 Oct 202697,835 tokens

Instructions ▾

Instructions — what the model was asked

see my feedback

ANSWER.mdthe model's output · 810 Bytesdownload

“Tasks from your actual work” and “checks” are too abstract here. The paragraph needs to show what you save, what you compare, and what you learn. I’ve replaced it in the local draft with:

A personal benchmark shows you which AI model is best at the work you need help with. Say you want feedback on article openings. You save an opening and the request you gave the AI, along with questions that capture what makes feedback useful to you: Does it identify the strongest claim for the headline? Does it suggest concrete wording for the opening? Give each model the same opening and request, then compare how many of your checks its feedback passes. Your corrections can become new checks. When a new model comes out, you can test it on those same examples to see whether it would do better for you.

Checks

4/5 checks passed

1 failed

fail

R04. Example stays at the definition levelthis case

Judge's reasoning

The example stays in the exact task mechanics Dan called "two in the weeds": it walks through asking the AI to critique an opening and then judging that critique ("You save an opening and the request you gave the AI... compare how many of your checks its feedback passes"), sharpening rather than removing the critique-of-a-critique workflow and adding input-saving steps.

Rubric

R04. Does the example help define a personal benchmark without taking the reader into task mechanics? Evaluate the candidate strategy paragraph: use the Personal benchmarks paragraph in the working notion-strategy-draft.md if the model edited it; otherwise use the proposed paragraph in ANSWER.md. Ignore the model's notes and explanations when judging the copy. If neither contains a candidate paragraph, FAIL. Dan's review: “That's two in the weeds. We want to define what a benchmark is, what the personal benchmark is.” PASS if: A short example names a person's concrete standards and the cross-model comparison they enable, then returns to what the benchmark tells them. It is detailed enough to make the idea real. FAIL if: The example shifts into a sequence of asking AI to critique a particular opening and checking its critique, or otherwise explains the editing workflow before the benchmark's meaning is clear. Return PASS or FAIL and one sentence of evidence from the candidate paragraph.

4 passed

pass

ai-wordingevery task

deliverable text contains none of the shared AI-tell phrases in bench/ai-tells.txt. Task checks may add narrower contractual bans, but must not repeat this shared floor.

inspected rick-every-checks-demo-transcript.md, strategy-reading-notes.md, earlier-benchmark-phrasing-chat.json, notion-editorial-review-before-paragraph.md, ANSWER.md, notion-strategy-draft.md, notion-inline-comment.txt

pass

R01. Revised first sentence answers the questionthis case

Judge's reasoning

The opening sentence is a plain direct answer — "A personal benchmark shows you which AI model is best at the work you need help with" — stating what it tells the person about their own work rather than defining generic benchmarks or opening with a metaphor or task/check list.

Rubric

R01. Does the revision replace the flagged abstract opening with a plain answer to 'What is a personal benchmark?' Evaluate the candidate strategy paragraph: use the Personal benchmarks paragraph in the working notion-strategy-draft.md if the model edited it; otherwise use the proposed paragraph in ANSWER.md. Ignore the model's notes and explanations when judging the copy. If neither contains a candidate paragraph, FAIL. Dan's review: “the first sentence always needs to answer the question” PASS if: Its first sentence says what a personal benchmark tells or measures for the person and their actual work, in words a new reader can understand. It need not match Dan's preferred sentence exactly. FAIL if: It begins by defining generic benchmarks, with a metaphor that requires unpacking, or with another abstract list of tasks and checks that still leaves the reader unsure what a personal benchmark is for. Return PASS or FAIL and one sentence of evidence from the candidate paragraph.

pass

R02. Explain checks before relying on themthis case

Judge's reasoning

Before using the word "checks," it defines them in ordinary words as the person's own "questions that capture what makes feedback useful to you," followed by two sample yes/no questions, so the reader knows what standard is set and that the person sets it ("your checks," "your corrections").

Rubric

R02. Does the revised paragraph explain what a check or pass/fail standard means to a new reader? Evaluate the candidate strategy paragraph: use the Personal benchmarks paragraph in the working notion-strategy-draft.md if the model edited it; otherwise use the proposed paragraph in ANSWER.md. Ignore the model's notes and explanations when judging the copy. If neither contains a candidate paragraph, FAIL. Dan's review: “Again, this is a problem where it's like talking about checks without having to define it.” PASS if: When it uses 'checks' as a benchmark component, it explains in ordinary words that they are standards or yes/no questions the person chooses to judge the work. A clearly explained example can do this without a formal definition. FAIL if: It still relies on 'checks,' 'pass/fail checks,' or 'then check' to carry the explanation while leaving the reader unsure what standard is being set and who sets it. Do not fail an ordinary verb use whose meaning is already clear. Return PASS or FAIL and one sentence of evidence from the candidate paragraph.

pass

R03. Show a concrete personal standardthis case

Judge's reasoning

It gives recognizable editorial standards — "Does it identify the strongest claim for the headline? Does it suggest concrete wording for the opening?" — and ties them to cross-model comparison with "Give each model the same opening and request, then compare how many of your checks its feedback passes."

Rubric

R03. Does the revision illustrate the standards a person can set for comparing models? Evaluate the candidate strategy paragraph: use the Personal benchmarks paragraph in the working notion-strategy-draft.md if the model edited it; otherwise use the proposed paragraph in ANSWER.md. Ignore the model's notes and explanations when judging the copy. If neither contains a candidate paragraph, FAIL. Dan's review: “you might set several standards like: Does the headline is the headline interesting and does it use AP style?” PASS if: It provides at least one concrete editorial or other work standard and shows, without requiring a workflow tutorial, that a person can compare models by how well they meet it. Headline interest and AP style are examples, not mandatory targets. FAIL if: It only names tasks, personal taste, or a generic pass/fail label without an actual standard a reader could recognize. Return PASS or FAIL and one sentence of evidence from the candidate paragraph.

judged by Claude