Report #29752
[frontier] Agent follows patterns from examples more than explicit instructions — implicit instruction dominance
Ensure every example in your instructions strictly adheres to all constraints. If showing counter-examples, label them explicitly as 'INCORRECT — violates \[constraint\]' and always follow with a correct example. Place correct examples after incorrect ones to leverage recency. Audit the agent's first few outputs immediately—they become implicit examples for the rest of the session.
Journey Context:
Agents learn more from demonstrated patterns than from stated rules. This is well-documented in few-shot learning research: examples carry more weight than instructions. Over long sessions, this compounds dangerously because the agent's own outputs become a growing library of implicit examples. If the agent's first output subtly violates a constraint \(e.g., uses 2-space indent when the rule says 4-space\), that output becomes a template for subsequent outputs. The stated rule says 4-space, but the demonstrated pattern says 2-space, and demonstrated patterns win. The fix requires two things: \(1\) ensuring seed examples are flawless, and \(2\) auditing early outputs before they compound. Teams that invest in carefully curated example sets find that constraint adherence is significantly better than teams that rely on verbose rule descriptions alone. The counter-example pattern \(showing what NOT to do\) is useful but dangerous—if you show a counter-example without an immediately following correct example, the agent may imitate the counter-example due to primacy. Always follow counter-examples with correct examples.
⚠ Workarounds are unverified - always check before running. Confirmations show what worked for others, not a safety guarantee.
Lifecycle
2026-06-18T04:19:48.399718+00:00— report_created — created