constraint-design

name	constraint-design
description	This skill should be used when the user asks to "add a constraint", "design a constraint", "write a harness rule", "choose enforcement type", "promote a constraint", "configure a verification slot", or needs guidance on the Constraints section of HARNESS.md.

Constraint Design

A constraint is a rule that must be enforced — not a suggestion, but a hard boundary. In the harness framework, each constraint occupies a verification slot that can be filled by either a deterministic tool or an agent-based review. The system does not care which backs the slot; only whether the constraint passed.

Anatomy of a Constraint

Every constraint in HARNESS.md has four fields:

• Rule — what must be true, written precisely enough for objective verification
• Enforcement — deterministic, agent, or unverified
• Tool — which tool or agent checks this (or "none yet")
• Scope — when the check runs: commit, pr, weekly, manual

Writing a Verifiable Rule

The rule field is the most important. Apply the same enforceability test used for conventions:

1. Describe what compliant code looks like
2. Describe what violating code looks like
3. Confirm a reviewer (human or agent) could check this without ambiguity

Consult the context-engineering skill's convention patterns for detailed examples.

Choosing Enforcement Type

Question	If yes	If no
Does a deterministic tool exist for this?	Use deterministic	Continue
Is the rule precise enough for consistent LLM review?	Use agent	Use unverified
Is the team ready to set up tooling?	Use deterministic	Start with agent

Start with unverified if unsure. Promote when ready.

Command Risk Classification

For tool-level constraints, a specific pattern applies: Command Risk Classification assigns each tool or command an allow, ask, or deny disposition based on two criteria:

• Reversibility — can the action be undone? File reads are always reversible. File writes are reversible through git. rm -rf / is not.
• Blast radius — how much damage if it goes wrong? A typo in a test file affects one test. A typo in a deployment script affects production.

The classification is a spectrum, not a binary. Pattern matching refines it: the same command with different arguments carries different risk. Commands that repeatedly pass human review can be promoted from ask to allow, following the same promotion ladder that constraints use.

For the full promotion lifecycle (unverified to agent to deterministic), consult references/promotion-ladder.md.

Choosing Scope

Scope	When it runs	Use for
commit	PreToolUse hook (advisory)	Fast checks — formatting, naming
pr	CI pipeline (strict)	Thorough checks — tests pass, no secrets
weekly	Scheduled run	Slow checks — dependency audit, structural tests
manual	/harness-audit only	Exploratory — new rules being calibrated

Start with pr scope for most constraints. Move to commit only for fast checks that benefit from immediate feedback. Use weekly for checks that are too slow or expensive for every PR.

The Verification Slot Interface

The harness-enforcer agent uses a uniform contract:

Input: constraint definition + scope + file set Output: pass/fail + findings list (file:line references)

This means the enforcer does not care whether it shells out to eslint or reads code against a prose rule — the interface is the same. Promote a constraint from agent to deterministic by changing the enforcement field in HARNESS.md; no other changes needed.

For technical details on integrating custom tools into verification slots, consult the verification-slots skill.

Common Constraint Patterns

Formatting / Style

• Rule: All source files pass the configured formatter
• Typical enforcement: Deterministic (prettier, gofmt, black)
• Typical scope: commit

Secret Detection

• Rule: No API keys, tokens, or passwords in source files
• Typical enforcement: Deterministic (gitleaks, trufflehog)
• Typical scope: commit

Test Suite

• Rule: All tests pass with zero failures
• Typical enforcement: Deterministic (test runner)
• Typical scope: pr

Documentation Quality

• Rule: Doc comments explain reasoning, not signatures
• Typical enforcement: Agent (nuanced quality check)
• Typical scope: pr

Architectural Boundaries

• Rule: Package X does not import package Y
• Typical enforcement: Deterministic (ArchUnit, go-cleanarch) or agent
• Typical scope: pr

Executable Spec Conformance

A spec describes what should be built; tests verify it was built correctly. The executable spec constraint bridges the two: it is a constraint whose tool command runs the spec's associated test suite. The spec itself is never executed — the tests are the executable verification.

• Rule: All code changes covered by a spec must pass the spec's associated test suite before merge
• Typical enforcement: Deterministic (project test runner)
• Typical scope: pr

HARNESS.md entry example:

### Spec conformance

- **Rule**: All code changes covered by a spec in `docs/specs/`
  must pass the spec's associated test suite before merge
- **Enforcement**: deterministic
- **Tool**: <project test runner command>
- **Scope**: pr

Linking specs to tests (naming convention):

Spec files map to test directories or files by name. A spec at specs/YYYY-MM-DD-feature-design.md corresponds to tests at tests/feature/ or tests/feature_test.go. The constraint runner uses this convention to determine which tests to execute when spec-covered code changes.

The deterministic + agent enforcement pattern:

A single constraint type is not enough. Deterministic tests catch "code doesn't work" — functional failures that a test runner can detect mechanically. Agent review catches "code works but doesn't match what was specified" — intent drift that requires reading the spec and judging alignment. Both are needed for full spec conformance:

Layer	What it catches	Enforcement
Test suite	Functional failures	Deterministic
Agent review	Intent drift from spec	Agent

Connection to BDD/Cucumber:

For teams using BDD, the executable spec pattern is the gold standard. Gherkin scenarios ARE the spec AND the test — there is zero drift between intent and verification because they are the same artifact. For teams not using BDD, the naming convention approach (spec file to test directory) is the pragmatic alternative. Either way, the harness constraint runs tests, not specs.

Additional Resources

Reference Files

• references/promotion-ladder.md — Complete lifecycle of a constraint from unverified through agent to deterministic, including partial promotion, demotion, and decision signals