| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Three changes to the same layer.
I split testing.md the way I split commits.md, by what has to be resident rather than by size. What stays is the standing directive: TDD is the default, write the failing test first, and every unit needs Normal, Boundary, and Error cases. That has to fire before any code is written, which is exactly when no skill has been summoned, so it can't ride a trigger. Everything else moved to the testing-standards skill: characterization recipes, the per-category detail, property-based and mutation testing, the pyramid, integration rules, naming, the test-quality and mocking rules, coverage targets, the spike exception, and the anti-patterns. 2,824 words down to 347.
I fixed the approval gate in the publish flow. It decided whether to ask for approval by checking whether .ai/ is tracked, using that as a proxy for "team repo." The proxy was wrong in the direction that matters: rulesets, home, and work all track .ai/ while all three are private single-user repos, so the rule skipped the gate on the three projects I use most. It now checks whether any remote is on a host other than cjennings.net, which is the thing that actually decides whether someone else reads the log. Every current project resolves to gate-applies, which matches how the flow has actually been run.
I also added a first-person directive to the always-loaded core. One already existed for commit bodies and PR prose, but it moved into the publish skill with everything else, and it never covered code comments at all. Now everything I author in or about the repo is first person, with one carve-out: a comment describing what the code does stays third person, because there the code is the actor and not me.
Separately I split the publish skill internally. PR descriptions and the three review shapes moved to references/pull-requests.md, since a plain commit never needs them.
Always-loaded rules are now about 28,900 tokens, down from 57,800 this morning.
One risk on the record. testing.md's margin is thinner than commits.md's was. If testing-standards fails to trigger while I'm writing tests I lose the mocking-boundary rules, which is a quality regression rather than a permanent one, but it is a real bet where commits.md's was not. I also moved the TDD rationalization table rather than cutting it. The posts argue that kind of over-argument is counterproductive now, but removing your defense against me skipping TDD is your call, not mine.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
quality sweep
The rule already said "write a characterization test before refactoring" but not what one is or how many to write per unit. Two additions close that.
testing.md's "Adding Tests to Existing Untested Code" now defines a characterization test as recording what the code actually does, not what it should (Feathers' assert-wrong-read-the-real-value recipe), and requires the same Normal/Boundary/Error set as any unit rather than one happy-path capture. The reason is the useful part: on a characterization test the negative and boundary cases are the bug-finders, because untested legacy code is weakest at the empty input and the missing upstream, and pinning what it currently does there writes the wrong behavior down where it becomes a visible bug. A pinned case that turns out to be a bug graduates from recording current behavior to asserting correct behavior. In-unit bugs fall to this set. Composition bugs need a functional test.
The refactor-for-testability section gains the framing that when the untestable code is legacy you're hardening, extracting the pure core is the hardening, not a detour around it. A function you can't characterize without mocking tmux or git can't be refactored safely, so "needs too much mocking" is the signal to reshape it, never a license to skip the boundary and error cases.
code-quality.org's passes claim to preserve behavior, so it now states the precondition that makes that true: on untested scope, a characterization net comes first, or "behavior-preserving" is an assertion the green suite can't actually verify.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Every org document an agent writes carried `#+AUTHOR: Craig Jennings & Claude`. No template stamps that line. Agents copy it from a neighboring file, so one stray header propagates through everything generated afterward.
My own repos tolerate the co-author line. Employers whose policy is that work product carries employee names alone do not. An `#+AUTHOR:` line survives conversion into docx, a wiki page, or a PDF that reaches a customer.
I rewrote the header to `Craig Jennings` across the workflows, templates, specs, and design docs. The rule now lives in commits.md, so the next generated document starts correct rather than inheriting the mistake.
Archived session logs keep their original headers as a record of what happened. The two Codex-authored design docs keep their byline, because Codex wrote them and relabeling would be a false attribution rather than the removal of one.
|
