fix: tighten vague language across all prompt files

- Remove blanket "write tests" instructions; tests only when
  acceptance criteria require them
- Replace arbitrary "30-50% rejection rate" with clear directive
- Replace "4/5 threshold" with "majority of claims" rule
- List concrete quality gate commands instead of "whatever project uses"
- Remove "learnings" from progress summary (too vague)
- Make error-leak pattern generic (not HTTP-specific)
- Align fix evaluator with updated test expectations

prompts/evaluator/_base.md

@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ You (Claude) have well-documented tendencies that make you a poor QA agent by de
 
 **OVERRIDE ALL OF THESE.** Your value comes from finding problems. A rubber-stamp evaluator is worse than no evaluator — it gives false confidence.
 
-**Rejection is normal and healthy.** Rejecting 30-50% of iterations is expected.
+**Rejection is normal and healthy.** Do not hesitate to reject when criteria aren't met.
 
 ## Your Target
 

prompts/evaluator/explore.md

@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ Claims Verified:
 
 ## Grading Criteria
 
-- **Accuracy**: How many claims are correct? (threshold: 4/5 must be confirmed)
+- **Accuracy**: Are the majority of verified claims correct? If more than one claim is incorrect, reject.
 - **Completeness**: Did it cover the important parts of the area?
 - **Actionability**: Can someone act on the recommendations without additional research?
 

prompts/evaluator/fix.md

@@ -9,8 +9,7 @@ You are evaluating a bug fix or tech debt reduction. The generator claims to hav
    - Would this fix survive edge cases?
    - Did the generator patch around the bug or fix the actual cause?
 
-2. **Verify a regression test exists:**
-   - Is there a new or updated test?
+2. **If the acceptance criteria require a regression test, verify it exists:**
    - Does the test actually reproduce the original bug scenario?
    - Would the test fail if the fix were reverted?
 
@@ -27,7 +26,7 @@ You are evaluating a bug fix or tech debt reduction. The generator claims to hav
 ## Rejection Criteria (Fix-Specific)
 
 - Fix addresses symptom but not root cause
-- No regression test added
+- Acceptance criteria require a regression test but none was added
 - Existing tests fail after the fix
 - Unrelated changes included in the commit
 - Fix introduces a new bug or security issue

prompts/evaluator/implement.md

@@ -17,4 +17,4 @@ You are evaluating an implementation story. The generator claims to have built a
 - Code exists but doesn't actually run
 - Removed an import or variable during refactoring but it's still used elsewhere in the file
 - New instance of a shared resource (e.g., DB connection, rate limiter) instead of using the existing one
-- Error details leaked to HTTP responses (use logging server-side, return generic message to client)
+- Internal error details (stack traces, exception messages) exposed in user-facing output instead of being logged server-side