exact-coding-baseline-export

name

exact-coding-baseline-export

description

Mint a new exact-coding-baseline-YYYY-MM-DD snapshot under research/workflow-dev/export/. Detects the current best correctness- oriented workflow from research/workflow-dev/workflow-construction.md (or takes an explicit source-workflow argument), copies it, applies the HITL transformation using the canonical template in this skill, and writes README + VERSION inside .claude/ so the snapshot can be dropped straight into a consumer project. Trigger when the user says "exact-coding baseline export", "neue exact-coding baseline", "exact-coding-baseline-export", or asks to refresh the baseline snapshot.

Skill: exact-coding-baseline-export

Mint a dated, HITL-enabled snapshot of the current best TDD workflow into research/workflow-dev/export/exact-coding-baseline-<YYYY-MM-DD>/.

This is a true transformation skill — it reads a source workflow (immutable), applies HITL re-enablement on top of it, and writes the result as a new snapshot. The skill is self-contained: the HITL consumable template and the README template live alongside this file under templates/.

Scope

• Single repo: agentic_coding_lab_project. Writes only inside research/workflow-dev/export/. Does not touch source workflows under experiments/workflows/, sibling repos, or anything else.
• Single artifact: a new directory at research/workflow-dev/export/exact-coding-baseline-<DATE>/.
• Idempotent within a date: refuses to overwrite an existing same-date snapshot unless the user explicitly says "overwrite" / "force".

Arguments

Two positional, both optional:

1. Date in YYYY-MM-DD form. Default: today (date +%F).
2. Source workflow name (e.g. v6.2-with-why-cleaned). Default: auto-detect (see "Source detection" below).

If the user passes "from v6.4 today" or similar, parse the source name and use today's date. If only one argument looks like a date, that's the date; if only one looks like a workflow name, that's the source.

Source detection

When no explicit source is given, find the current correctness-critical default from research/workflow-dev/workflow-construction.md. The recommendation lives in the "Aktuelle Front" section and starts with the prefix "Default für korrekheits-kritische Arbeit" (note the typo "korrekheits" in the source — keep it in the grep).

SRC_NAME=$(grep -E '\*\*Default für korre[kt]+heits-kritische Arbeit' \
             research/workflow-dev/workflow-construction.md \
           | head -1 \
           | sed -E 's/.*`([^`]+)`.*/\1/')

The first backtick-quoted workflow name on that line is the recommendation. Verify the directory exists:

SRC_DIR="experiments/workflows/$SRC_NAME"
[ -d "$SRC_DIR/.claude" ] || { echo "Source $SRC_DIR missing"; exit 1; }

If the grep fails (the recommendation line moved or got renamed), ask the user which workflow to use. Do not silently fall back to a hardcoded name — a stale fallback is the whole reason this skill was rewritten away from clone-from-latest.

Print the resolved source to the user before proceeding, so a wrong detection can be aborted.

Target

TARGET="research/workflow-dev/export/exact-coding-baseline-$DATE"
[ -e "$TARGET" ] && { echo "Exists; pass 'overwrite' to replace"; exit 1; }
mkdir -p "$TARGET/.claude/agents" "$TARGET/.claude/commands" \
         "$TARGET/.claude/rules"

Transformation steps

Step 1: copy source files

For each file, copy 1:1 from $SRC_DIR/.claude/ to $TARGET/.claude/:

• settings.json
• rules/tdd-with-ts-and-vitest.md (some older source workflows used tdd_with_ts_and_vitest.md — if present, rename to hyphen form in target)
• agents/refactor.md
• commands/test-list.md
• commands/red.md
• commands/green.md
• rules/tdd.md

Do not copy rules/tdd-experiment-mode.md if present in source — it is replaced by the consumable tdd-execution-mode.md from this skill's templates.

Step 2: write fresh files from skill templates

Copy verbatim from .opencode/skills/exact-coding-baseline-export/templates/:

• templates/human-in-the-loop.md → $TARGET/.claude/rules/human-in-the-loop.md
• templates/tdd-execution-mode.md → $TARGET/.claude/rules/tdd-execution-mode.md

Step 3: render README from template

Take templates/README.template.md. Substitute placeholders:

• {{DATE}} → $DATE (both occurrences: title and "Version" line)
• {{SOURCE_WORKFLOW}} → $SRC_NAME (two occurrences in "Tested parameters" and "Original name and lineage")

Write to $TARGET/.claude/README.md.

Step 4: write VERSION

echo "$DATE" > "$TARGET/.claude/VERSION"

Step 5: HITL inject into copied phase files

The copied source files reference experiment-mode wording or lack HITL references. Apply the HITL Patches (next section) to each of the four phase files plus rules/tdd.md.

Use the edit tool for surgical changes; do not rewrite whole files unless the surgical change would be larger than the file.

HITL Patches

Each patch is described as: file → location → replacement / addition. The exact target strings are taken from v6.2-with-why-cleaned; for other source workflows the strings might differ — in that case, use the nearest structural anchor (e.g. "after the last numbered Step") and report any patch that could not be applied verbatim.

Patch A — rules/tdd.md

1. Header rename (top of file):

   • From: # Test-Driven Development (TDD) Rules — Hybrid (v6) (or whatever header the source uses)
   • To: # TDD Rules — Hybrid (v6, exact-coding baseline)

2. Drop experiment-pipeline justification in the "🚨 CRITICAL" intro paragraph. The source typically has a sentence like "The experiment's measurement pipeline parses these tool calls to compute cycle_count, predictions_correct_rate, and refactorings_applied." — remove the pipeline/metric reference and replace with the generic architectural justification:

   If you write test code, implementation code, or refactorings directly in the main context instead of delegating, the workflow loses the architectural separation that makes the hybrid work.

3. Drop the EXPERIMENT MODE: Run autonomously, return when done. line from the Step 4 Refactor Task({...}) prompt example.

4. Append to the Overview section (after the architectural description, before "TDD Workflow"):

   This baseline supports configurable human-in-the-loop checkpoints between phases. See @.claude/rules/human-in-the-loop.md for the Autonomy Level setting and stop behavior.

5. Replace reference @.claude/rules/tdd-experiment-mode.md → @.claude/rules/tdd-execution-mode.md.

6. Insert section ## Human-in-the-Loop after "Core TDD Principles":

   ## Human-in-the-Loop
   
   Between phases, the workflow consults `@.claude/rules/human-in-the-loop.md`
   to decide whether to pause for human approval. The default Autonomy Level
   is `full-hitl`, which stops after Test-List, Red, and Refactor (not Green)
   and on prediction failures. Switch levels by editing the setting at the
   top of the HITL file — see that file for the full table.
   
   For unattended batch runs, set the level to `autonomous` to disable all
   stops.
   

7. Append to "Remember" list:

   Consult @.claude/rules/human-in-the-loop.md at every phase boundary

Patch B — commands/red.md

1. Step 7 "Why this format matters": the source paragraph refers to predictions_correct_rate and "the experiment measures". Replace with:

   **Why this format matters:** The block is mechanically parsed by tooling to
   verify the Guessing Game discipline. The parser expects two lines matching
   `(- |✅ |❌ )(Correct|Incorrect)` per cycle — one for the compilation
   prediction, one for the runtime prediction. Collapsing them into a single
   line, summarizing them as "both correct", or skipping the block entirely
   loses the signal. Format consistency here matters even outside batch runs:
   it makes the prediction quality visible to you and any future reader.
   

   The verbatim 🔴 Red Phase Complete: block that follows MUST stay exactly as in source — it is one of the four MARKERS.

2. Step 3 / Step 6 STOP lines: source has "❌ Prediction wrong → STOP and explain discrepancy". Replace STOP and explain discrepancy with follow the Prediction Failure Protocol below (the Prediction Failure Protocol section is updated in step B.4).

3. Append Step 8 after the Step 7 block:

   ### Step 8: Apply HITL Checkpoint
   
   Consult `@.claude/rules/human-in-the-loop.md`. If the current Autonomy Level
   includes a stop after Red phase, present the checkpoint template from that
   file and wait for explicit user approval before proceeding to Green. If the
   level does not stop after Red, proceed directly to Green phase.
   

4. Prediction Failure Protocol section: after the existing ❌ Prediction Failed: code block, append:

   Then apply the **Prediction Failure Recovery** procedure in
   `@.claude/rules/human-in-the-loop.md`. In every Autonomy Level except
   `autonomous`, this is a hard stop — the human decides whether you continue
   or investigate first.
   

5. Completion section at the end: replace whatever closing prose source has with:

   After Step 8 (HITL checkpoint), proceed to Green phase if approved or if
   the Autonomy Level does not require a stop:
   
   

   🔴 Red Phase Complete. Proceeding to Green phase.

Patch C — commands/green.md

Append at the end of the "Completion" section:

> **HITL note:** Green has no human checkpoint by default — the default
> Autonomy Level (`full-hitl`) skips it because Green is the most mechanical
> phase and stops here mostly produce "yes, continue" with no review value.
> To enable a Green checkpoint, see `@.claude/rules/human-in-the-loop.md`.

Patch D — commands/test-list.md

Append after Step 5 ("Provide Summary"):

### Step 6: Apply HITL Checkpoint

Consult `@.claude/rules/human-in-the-loop.md`. If the current Autonomy Level
includes a stop after Test-List (the default `full-hitl` does), present the
checkpoint template from that file and wait for explicit user approval
before proceeding to the first Red phase. If the level does not stop after
Test-List, proceed directly to Red.

Adjust the trailing "Completion" section's prose to acknowledge Step 6.

Patch E — agents/refactor.md

Append after Step 7 ("Report Completion"):

### Step 8: Apply HITL Checkpoint

After returning the report to the requester, the requesting context will
consult `@.claude/rules/human-in-the-loop.md`. If the current Autonomy Level
includes a stop after Refactor (the default `full-hitl` does), the requester
will present the checkpoint template and wait for explicit user approval
before proceeding to the next Red phase. This step is the requester's
responsibility, not yours — your job ends with the Step 7 report.

Validation

Run all checks after Step 5. Any failure means the snapshot is broken — report immediately, do not claim success.

1. File set: exactly these 11 files exist:

   find "$TARGET" -type f | sort
   

   Expected:

   .claude/README.md
   .claude/VERSION
   .claude/agents/refactor.md
   .claude/commands/{green,red,test-list}.md
   .claude/rules/{human-in-the-loop,tdd,tdd-execution-mode,tdd-with-ts-and-vitest}.md
   .claude/settings.json
   

2. Source workflow files copied (size sanity — none of the source files dropped below 500 bytes during patching, which would indicate a destroyed file):

   find "$TARGET/.claude" -type f -name '*.md' -size -500c
   

   Must print nothing.

3. MARKERS intact (cross-reference experiments/workflows/MARKERS.md):

   grep -q 'Skill({ skill: "test-list"' "$TARGET/.claude/rules/tdd.md"
   grep -q '🔴 Red Phase Complete'        "$TARGET/.claude/commands/red.md"
   grep -q 'MUST attempt at least one refactoring' \
                                          "$TARGET/.claude/agents/refactor.md"
   grep -q 'Absolute Priority Premise\|APP.*Mass' \
                                          "$TARGET/.claude/agents/refactor.md"
   

   Plus the verbatim two-line prediction block in red.md:

   grep -cE '(Compilation|Runtime) Prediction.*✅ Correct' \
        "$TARGET/.claude/commands/red.md"
   

   Must print 2.

4. No experiment-mode wording leaked into the snapshot:

   grep -r 'tdd-experiment-mode\|EXPERIMENT MODE\|predictions_correct_rate\|refactorings_applied\b' \
        "$TARGET/.claude" && echo "FAIL: experiment wording leaked"
   

   Must print no matches.

5. HITL referenced from every phase file:

   for f in test-list.md red.md green.md; do
     grep -q 'human-in-the-loop.md' "$TARGET/.claude/commands/$f" \
       || echo "FAIL: HITL missing from $f"
   done
   grep -q 'human-in-the-loop.md' "$TARGET/.claude/agents/refactor.md"
   

6. Autonomy Level switch present:

   grep -q 'Autonomy Level' "$TARGET/.claude/rules/human-in-the-loop.md"
   grep -q 'full-hitl'      "$TARGET/.claude/rules/human-in-the-loop.md"
   

7. VERSION + README version line match the requested date:

   grep -qx "$DATE" "$TARGET/.claude/VERSION"
   grep -q  "Version \*\*$DATE\*\*\|Version: \*\*$DATE\*\*" \
        "$TARGET/.claude/README.md"
   

8. README placeholders fully substituted:

   grep -F '{{' "$TARGET/.claude/README.md" \
     && echo "FAIL: unsubstituted placeholders"
   

   Must print no matches.

Report to the user

After successful validation:

1. Echo the resolved source workflow name and target snapshot path.
2. Print the file tree.
3. Note that the skill did NOT commit/push — the user does git operations afterwards.
4. Mention the sibling repos (exact-coding-book, exact-coding-exercises) explicitly: the snapshot has NOT been copied into them; if a copy is desired, the user requests it as a separate action.

What this skill explicitly does NOT do

• Does not push, commit, or git add anything.
• Does not copy the snapshot into sibling repos.
• Does not edit source workflows under experiments/workflows/.
• Does not edit workflow-construction.md or any RQ findings — those belong in their own RQ-driven flows.
• Does not prompt for substantive content changes. If the source workflow's content has drifted in a way that the surgical patches in this skill no longer apply cleanly, the patches above need to be updated in this SKILL.md first.

Related files

• templates/human-in-the-loop.md — canonical HITL consumable, copied verbatim into every snapshot.
• templates/tdd-execution-mode.md — replaces source's tdd-experiment-mode.md.
• templates/README.template.md — README with {{DATE}} and {{SOURCE_WORKFLOW}} placeholders.
• HUMAN-IN-THE-LOOP.md (in this skill's directory) — methodology reference describing the HITL design rationale and re-enablement steps. Useful for understanding why the templates look the way they do, but not consumed by the export flow itself.

Quick reference

Invocation	Action
/exact-coding-baseline-export	Auto-detect source, date = today
/exact-coding-baseline-export 2026-06-15	Auto-detect source, custom date
/exact-coding-baseline-export v6.4-some-variant	Explicit source, today
/exact-coding-baseline-export 2026-06-15 v6.4-some-variant	Both explicit
/exact-coding-baseline-export overwrite	Same as default, but allow clobber

Single output: a new directory at research/workflow-dev/export/exact-coding-baseline-<DATE>/. Validation must pass before reporting success.