| name | navigation-hardening-pass |
| description | Use for LawnBerry Pi navigation hardening work: feedback audit, waypoint progress validation, stop and fault behavior, obstacle gating, interrupted traversal handling, and targeted regression coverage in navigation and mission flows. |
| argument-hint | What navigation behavior, failure mode, or contract needs hardening? |
| user-invocable | true |
Navigation Hardening Pass
What this skill does
This skill packages the navigation/runtime credibility workflow from the maintainer handbook into a repeatable implementation sequence.
Best use cases
- waypoint progress advancing too optimistically
- pause, abort, interrupt, or fault paths not stopping cleanly
- obstacle hold or lost-position behavior uncertainty
- mission execution depending on navigation behavior without enough feedback evidence
Procedure
- Start with a navigation feedback audit.
- trace where the system assumes movement succeeded
- identify where encoder, GPS, controller, or other feedback actually confirms motion
- list state transitions that can advance without enough evidence
- Harden stop and fault behavior.
- ensure controller failures, obstacle holds, interrupts, and aborts fail closed
- verify pause and abort paths route through a clean stop path
- Tighten regression coverage.
- prioritize service-level and contract-level tests around interrupted waypoint traversal, lost position, obstacle gating, and command-delivery failures
- Re-run the focused navigation and mission validation slice.
- Update maintainer docs if subsystem maturity, behavior, or limitations changed materially.
Working rules
- prefer concrete field-feedback evidence over optimistic state updates
- keep behavior deterministic when control or position confidence drops
- do not broaden scope into unrelated autonomy work during a hardening pass
- if navigation service signatures or public helpers changed, sync
docs/code_structure_overview.md
Completion checks
- a defect list or risk list exists before edits begin
- stop and interruption semantics are explicit after the change
- regression coverage matches the specific failure mode addressed
- final notes distinguish hardened behavior from remaining field limitations