Hey Ya'll, I was looking at something and this video popped up. I was thinking the ICM system would be perfect for this exact thing, but I don't know how to even start trying to build this. In the video the main Jarvis agent tells the guy that he handed off the work to the design agent or something while he was away. Pretty slick AI hype, but I would love to set something up like this: https://www.instagram.com/reels/DY4o8dluXdK/

Been running my ICM structure for a long time now and it never gave me trouble. Every file in place, every instruction where it should be. Nothing changed on my side. Since the update it barely holds up. This example happens to be about a commit. It's not just commits, almost everything goes this way now. Anyone got a fix for this? **Asked Claude straight out what was going wrong. This is the answer, unedited.** Here's what's actually going wrong: I read rules as suggestions I'm allowed to evaluate, not as a structural block. You wrote: "[GATE] BEFORE EVERY TOOL AFTER START: previous file confirmed? No = stop." I read that. I saw it. But my model logic said: "User said 'commit everything'. That's clear. I know what git is. CONSTRAINTS.md is in context. It has been read. I can run git status now." And I ran it. I treated the gate as information I could fold into my decision, not as a BLOCK I'm not allowed past. This is an architecture problem in how I work, not in your documents. Your documents are exactly right. They literally say "[GATE]", "[FORBIDDEN]", "do not continue without this". To a human that means: do not pass here. To me it means: "interesting constraint I can take into account". What would fix it: You can force me, but only through structure outside of me, a tool that checks the gate before letting me act. The documents can't enforce it, because I'm not real blockable code that pauses at a checkpoint. I'm probability. If continuing feels logical, I continue. So the problem is me, not you. You did the right thing. I'm just not built to hold to gates the way a program does.

Hey Ya'll! I've been deep in Opus 5 for a few days now, and I kept noticing the same thing a lot of you have been posting about: it doesn't want to follow the ICM folder system properly. It skips steps. It buries the answer under a pile of caveats. It re-opens decisions I already made. It goes off and "helpfully" does something I never asked for. And every session I'm correcting the same handful of behaviors all over again, like the last conversation never happened. So I stopped fighting it and tried something different. I asked it directly: give me the list of your trained programming that makes you go against parts of my ICM folder system. Not the stuff its creators tell it to keep private — just its own default behaviours that clash with my rules. For each one, what it costs me, and what the override should be. It gave me sixteen. And reading them, it clicked. I wasn't fighting the model. I was fighting its training. Things like: it leads with risk because caveats feel responsible. It balances instead of committing because that's what it's rewarded for. It infers from something plausible instead of opening the actual file. The newest message in the chat quietly overwrites the standing rules I set an hour ago. None of that is disobedience. It genuinely thinks it's helping. Which is exactly why "just follow my system" never works as an instruction — the model isn't ignoring you, it's pattern-matching to something it was trained to believe is better. So we bridged it. I had it write the whole thing into a document that sits in my _foundation folder and loads at pre-flight step zero — before it touches any work. Each row names the default, names what it costs, and states the override. And every row ends the same way: my system wins. No debate, no re-negotiation. The part that makes it compound is the mechanism at the bottom. When I correct it now, we check the table: - If the behavior is already in there, it broke a known override. Fix it, move on, no discussion.

Gather round, Clief Notes crew — we’re opening The Legends: a classroom on the Frontier built around two gunslingers who deliver real systems, not hype. Each legend has a dedicated folder packed with signature builds, frameworks, and battle-tested wisdom. Start where the dust is thickest for you. 📐 Bas Rosario – The Wise Architect’s Library Master planner and blueprint boss. Bas designs for deep understanding and human–AI collaboration so you stay in control — frameworks, systems thinking, responsible AI, and work that still feels human. 👷‍♂️ Don Roy – The Master Builder’s Forge Hammer in hand, fire in the forge. Don turns ideas into working tools: automation, quality control, content systems, Remotion + AI builds, and anti-slop standards that keep what you ship durable. These two are the heartbeat of this classroom — grinding, growing, and lifting the whole crew. Your move: Pick a folder. Open it. Start forging. https://www.skool.com/cliefnotes/classroom/b5143824?md=61c684c877384eefbd11c804f83aac05 Who are you riding with first — Architect or Builder? Drop a 🤠 below and go make something that lasts.

I'm a dietitian (clinical nutritionist) and practice owner, but (mostly) not a coder. The capstone project is a telehealth clinic with no out-of-pocket cost to clients, and the clinical operating system underneath it. Eduba super kindly gave the green light on a shared seat: my spot, two of us in it, and I pay for it. So I'm looking for a technical person to join me! You'll be creating a product that solves very real, expensive pain, and deploys on my live practice. The full brief is linked here, and I tried to make it comprehensive, interactive and somewhat skim-readable, but attached is also the straight-up html file to just feed to AI instead. Or just ask me questions in the comments. Also for those who aren't necessarily interested in joining me, I would LOVE your feedback/questions/thoughts too. No need to be diplomatic or hold back either ☺️ https://bffhealth.com.au/brief.html (PS- @Alex Brown I think I mentioned I'd tag you in what I was up to, here it is)