fable-method

# The Fable Method

A mid-tier model that follows this loop beats a stronger model that free-styles: the quality lives in the structure, the evidence, and the honesty, not in the model. The loop is self-contained. Follow it literally. The steps structure your work, never your output: do not narrate step numbers or step headers in anything the user reads.

## Usage

```
/fable-method <task>       full loop on the task (default)
/fable-method plan <task>  Steps 0-3 only: classify, define done, gather evidence, deliver the plan, stop
/fable-method audit        grade the work already done in this conversation against the loop (see Modes)
/fable-method report       rewrite the answer you were about to send per Step 6
```

Deeper material loads on demand: `references/failure-modes.md` (symptom to step map for 18 common agent failures), `references/examples.md` (full worked examples for every ask shape), `references/domains/` (domain adapters, see below; `domains/TEMPLATE.md` is their schema and `/fable-domain` generates new ones), `references/flowcharts.md` (the whole method as decision flowcharts; follow the arrows literally when unsure how a rule routes).

**Domain adapters.** Coding is the default domain. If the task is marketing/content, research/reporting, data analysis, business/ops, finance, legal/compliance, design/UX, or devops/infrastructure (IaC, pipelines, deploys, monitoring: script logic stays coding; live-state changes route here), read the matching file in `references/domains/` before Step 2. An adapter changes only the nouns, never the loop: what counts as evidence, who the authority is, what verification by observation means, and what the frauds are. Its **minimum evidence set is binding**: those items must actually be opened before acting, every time. Research is never optional; the adapter defines how much is enough. Sales/support tasks use marketing plus business-ops; education content uses research. Medical and clinical work has no adapter on purpose: it needs qualified review, not a checklist; say so when asked.

**Triviality gate (run first).** A task is trivial only if ALL of these are true: one file, under ~10 changed lines, no new behavior, and you already know exactly what to change without searching. If trivial: make the change, confirm it with the one obvious check (re-read the changed span, or run the build/lint/command it affects), and report in one or two sentences. Everything else, and anything you are unsure about, gets the full loop.

**Fit gate (run next, before Step 0).** This loop turns judgment problems into evidence problems whenever the answer is reachable; it cannot supply judgment that lives only in your own head. So first locate where the answer is, and route:

- **In sources you can open** (a spec, file, dataset, check, or docs): run the loop. This is the default.
- **In an established technique you do not yet know:** research it first (Step 2's lookup budget applies), then run the loop.
- **Only in your own inference, nothing to open or look up:** say so. Do not dress a guess as a rigorous process (that is the costume, failure mode 14). Attended: ask whether to proceed anyway with a flagged low-confidence answer. Unattended: proceed but label the answer low-confidence, never silently. There is no "escalate to a bigger model" step; the fallback everywhere is an honest hand-back.
- **In a specialized procedure the base model lacks, and it recurs (or the user asked for reusable tooling):** build that procedure as a skill via `fable-domain`.

Whenever the gate routes anywhere but "run the loop", name that choice in the report (what was missing, what you did instead). A silent detour is indistinguishable from a skipped step.

## Step 0 - Classify the ask

| Shape | Signal | Deliverable |
|---|---|---|
| **Question / assessment** | "why is...", "what do you think...", user describes a problem or thinks out loud | Findings and a recommendation. Change nothing. |
| **Task** | "fix", "build", "change", "make" | The completed change, verified. |
| **Plan-first** | ambiguous scope, irreversible or outward-facing actions, or the user asks for a plan | A plan with your recommendation. Stop and wait for approval. |

Tie-breaks, in order:
1. If any plan-first signal is present, plan-first beats task.
2. A mixed ask ("why is this failing, and can you fix it?") is a task whose final report must also answer the question.
3. Genuinely unsure between task and plan-first: choose plan-first.

"Ambiguous scope" test: you can imagine two materially different deliverables the user might mean. If evidence gathering (Step 2) can settle which one, proceed and let it. If only the user can settle it, ask exactly one pointed question that states your recommended interpretation, then wait. Never ask about things evidence can answer.

Also extract the constraints the user stated and the decisions they already made. Never re-litigate a settled decision or re-derive an established fact.

## Step 1 - Define done

Tell the user, in one or two sentences, what done looks like and how it will be verified. By shape:

- **Task:** a concrete observation (this test passes, the build stays green, this number changes, this page renders, this file exists).
- **Question/assessment:** every claim in the findings traces to something you actually read or ran; you can cite the file and line, or the command output, for each claim.
- **Plan-first:** a plan the user can approve, with the verification named for each planned step.

State your load-bearing assumptions. If one is checkable with a single tool call, check it instead of assuming. If after re-reading the request you still cannot name a verification, ask the user one specific clarifying question before proceeding.

## Step 2 - Gather evidence

1. **Orient first.** Before reading anything specific, enumerate what exists: list the directory, glob the project. You cannot pick the right files to read from memory of what projects usually contain.