| name | invariants |
| description | The ordering and evidence rules the whole bencium-loop loop rests on, stated once with their reasons and their real enforcement status. Referenced by every /bencium-* command instead of being restated in each one. Read this before deciding whether a step may proceed. |
invariants
Some pairs of actions have a required order, and some claims require evidence before they may be made. Getting either wrong rarely produces a loud error — the second step just quietly means less than it appears to.
These are stated here once. Commands reference this skill and carry only the rule specific to them.
What is actually enforced
Be precise about this, because the difference matters most in exactly the conditions where it is easiest to forget: a long session, a tired user, a model under context pressure.
| invariant | how it holds |
|---|
| PLAN → BUILD | hook — the edit is blocked (plan-gate.sh) |
| VERIFY → DEPLOY | hook — the deploy command is blocked (deploy-gate.sh) |
[deployed] rows only flipped by SMOKE | hook — the edit is blocked (acceptance-gate.sh) |
| RED → GREEN | asked |
| evidence before a check is ticked | asked |
| no row vanishes from a workflow result | code, in the workflow scripts |
The three hooks exist only on Claude Code. On Codex, opencode, and pasted chats every line above is a convention the model follows because the prompt says so. That works most of the time. It is not the same thing, and the loop should never claim otherwise.
The ordering invariants
PLAN → BUILD. No implementation file is edited before the user approves the plan. The plan is the spec; approving it is the only place the user gets to disagree cheaply. The one exception is the PROTOTYPE detour, which writes throwaway files to a disposable location and nothing else.
RED → GREEN. The declared failing test is observed failing, for the expected reason, before any implementation file is edited. A test written after the code tends to assert what the code does rather than what was wanted. Exceptions are declared in the plan (none — trivial (declared)) or logged as a bypass.
VERIFY (local) → DEPLOY. Deploy does not run while any check fails. The gate is the point of having a checklist at all.
DEPLOY → SMOKE. [deployed]-tagged rows are never evaluated against the working tree — only against the live URL, and only after deploying. Local pass is not shipped: environment variables, build mode, and the network are all different in the place users actually are. Only SMOKE may flip those rows, and it keeps the tag when it does (- [x] [deployed] X) so the row can never later be mistaken for a local check.
The evidence invariants
Evidence before a tick. A check is marked passed only with something you can point at — a file path, a grep hit, command output, an HTTP status. Never a recollection, never an inference from "the code looks right".
An unevaluated check is a failed check. If a check could not be run at all — a dead agent, no response, a missing fixture with no stated reason — it is FAIL. Not absent, not skipped, not passed. Zero evaluated checks is a FAIL, never a vacuous pass. A missing row reads as a row that was never on the list, which is how a silent drop turns into a false green.
A gamed pass is a FAIL. Green is necessary, not sufficient: the test must still assert the real behaviour. A weakened assertion, a skipped test, a hardcoded echo of current output, or a narrowed verify command all fail the check they appear to support.
Declaring your own
If a project step must run before another — database provisioned before secret request, auth before any user-route, migration before seed — declare it in .harness/rules.md under an "Ordering invariants" heading. The agent reads rules.md every session and will refuse step Y without step X.
Document the why on each one, not just the order. "Migration before seed (seed scripts assume the schema exists)" is enforceable. "Migration before seed" alone forces the agent to guess the reason, and a guessed reason permits a clever-but-wrong shortcut.
Adding a rule costs something
Instruction-following degrades as rule count climbs: past some point a new rule silently displaces compliance with an older one, and nothing announces when that line was crossed.
So a release that adds a hard rule should remove or subsume one. If the count goes up anyway, the CHANGELOG says why. tests/rule-budget.test.mjs holds the per-command line and rule budgets and fails when one is exceeded — which makes raising a budget a visible diff rather than a drift.
That test measures volume, not compliance. It tells you the surface is growing; it cannot tell you the rules are still being followed.
