Five rewrites of one routing rule
“Well done is better than well said.”
The ops agent I run for a client drives on Grok 4.6 and may hand heavy code to Claude Opus 5. I wrote the rule for when, in words. On 8 Oct I rewrote it five times, each time after the agent sent the wrong job to Opus. The final run passed 30 of 32 scenarios. One misroute survived every version of the wording, so the next fix goes into the tool itself. It is not built yet.
The run, in four numbers
Rewrites of the routing rule on 8 Oct, from v2.1.0 to v2.3.2. Each one followed a misroute seen on the real agent.
Scenarios passed in the final run. The same 25 scenarios as the old suite held at 24 of 25.
Asks with no code in them stayed on Grok. The one that did not is a profit question with no data access.
Opus at list price for the five hand-offs in the run. Billed $0, because it runs on a Claude subscription.
Transcript
Sources and honest limits
GITRouting rule commits v2.1.0 to v2.3.2 (8ffe823 to cecc5ee), 8 Oct 2026, private repoRUNChange record and scorecard of the 32-scenario run, 8 Oct 2026, private; names and hosts withheldFRKBenjamin Franklin, Poor Richard, 1737, Founders Online, National Archives: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-02-02-0028
One run per scenario, graded by a person against a written rubric, with two auto verdicts overridden and the reasons written down. Heavy builds went to Opus 4 of 5 times; the fifth, a debugging task with three interacting bugs, stayed on Grok, which found all three causes in 175 s. Whether debugging should stay home is still my call. A hand-off adds three to six minutes. The list price is computed from token counts in the agent database at published Opus rates. Client names, hosts and internal tickets are left out.
Solving the puzzle.