Skip to main content

backprop

Bug → spec protocol. When a bug is found or a test fails, trace the cause, decide whether a new §V invariant would catch recurrence, append to §B. This is the one non-obvious thing SDD does that plan-then-execute doesn't. Triggers on test failure, bug report, post-mortem, or explicit user ask.

Informações da origem

Repositório
JuliusBrussee/cavekit
Última atividade na origem
20 de abril de 2026 às 00:01
Idioma detectado do SKILL.md
inglês
Estrelas
1.152
Forks
90

Opções de instalação

Por padrão, está selecionado o prompt que primeiro revisa a origem. Você pode mudar para um comando direto ou baixar uma cópia local.

Revise os arquivos de origem

Leia o SKILL.md e os arquivos complementares exibidos pelo SkillsMP antes de decidir se vai instalar.

Exibindo SKILL.md

SKILL.md
Instruções da origem · Visualização somente leitura
name
backprop
description
Bug → spec protocol. When a bug is found or a test fails, trace the cause, decide whether a new §V invariant would catch recurrence, append to §B. This is the one non-obvious thing SDD does that plan-then-execute doesn't. Triggers on test failure, bug report, post-mortem, or explicit user ask.
# backprop — bug → spec Plan-then-execute fixes the code & forgets. SDD fixes the code AND edits spec so recurrence is impossible. That edit is backprop. ## WHEN TO BACKPROP - Test failed at `/build` verification. - User reports bug. - Post-mortem after production incident. - `/check` flags VIOLATE with root cause found. ## SIX STEPS ### 1. TRACE Read failure output / bug report. Find exact file:line of wrong behavior. Name root cause in one caveman sentence. ### 2. ANALYZE Ask three questions: - Would a new §V invariant catch this class of bug? (most common: yes) - Is §I wrong — did spec claim shape the code cannot deliver? (sometimes) - Is §T wrong — did we build the wrong thing? (rare but real) ### 3. PROPOSE Draft the spec change. Never skip §B; §V/§I/§T are case-by-case. Template: ``` §B row: B<next>|<date>|<root cause>|V<N> §V line: V<next>: <testable rule that would have caught it> ``` Example: ``` §B row: B3|2026-04-20|refund job ran twice on retry|V7 §V line: V7: ∀ refund → idempotency key check before charge reversal ``` ### 4. GENERATE TEST New invariant without test = lie. Add failing test first. Name test so it cites the invariant: `TestV7_RefundIdempotent`. ### 5. VERIFY Fix code. Run test. Must pass. Run full suite. Must not regress. ### 6. LOG Commit spec edit + test + code fix together. Commit msg: `backprop §B.<n> + §V.<N>: <one-line cause>`. ## WHAT MAKES A GOOD INVARIANT - Testable in code (grep-able or assert-able). - Scoped to a behavior, not a file. - Stated positively when possible (`! hold` over `⊥ forbid`). - References §I surface where it applies. **Bad**: V8: code should be correct. **Good**: V8: ∀ pg_query ! params interpolated via driver, ⊥ string concat. ## WHEN NOT TO ADD §V - Bug was purely mechanical typo with no class (`i++` vs `i--` in throwaway). - Fix is a one-time migration. - Root cause is external dep (upgrade deps instead, note in §C). Still append §B entry — record that this failure mode was considered. Future bug with same smell → §B search shows precedent. ## OUTPUT SHAPE Every backprop run produces: 1. §B entry (always). 2. §V entry (usually). 3. Test file (when §V added). 4. Code fix. 5. One commit. No dashboards. No log files. SPEC.md + git is the full history.
Ver no GitHub