test(prose): give the eight read-only cases something that can fail#565
Open
leeovery wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
test(prose): give the eight read-only cases something that can fail#565leeovery wants to merge 1 commit into
leeovery wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
Every entry case declared exactly one check, `engine_before_write`, and those walks write nothing — so it reported "no workflow state was written" and passed, every time, whatever the prose did. Eight cases with nothing enforceable behind them, all showing green. Two changes so that cannot recur quietly. A check with nothing to examine now reports N/A rather than PASS. A green tick for absence of coverage is how this went unnoticed in the first place; the distinction is now on the page. And the eight get real declarations, drawn from the claims they already make. Their "further claims" turn out to be not-called assertions almost word for word — "the entry skill records nothing", "an entry that only validates writes nothing", "the knowledge base is queried, never written to" — so each becomes a calls_exclude over `topic start`, `topic reopen`, `manifest set`, `knowledge index`. What each case says it reads becomes a calls_include over the gate it must render. calls_in_order is new, and is the one thing presence could never settle: a gate read *after* the arm it was supposed to select proves the arm was chosen some other way. Declared commands must appear as a subsequence, with anything permitted in between. P9 is corrected too. It demanded every case run until state landed, which was wrong twice: it treated file changes as the only hard evidence, when recorded actions are equally deterministic, and it would have pushed short entry walks into needing conversation stubs — trading live prose for hand-written fiction. A handoff is a fine ending. The rule is that every claim must have a deterministic answer; the stop point follows from that rather than being legislated. The declarations are derived from the prose and not yet from a live run. Any that prove wrong get corrected on this branch before it lands. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
leeovery
force-pushed
the
test/prose-claims-that-can-fail
branch
from
July 26, 2026 19:39
fd3126f to
c4b2589
Compare
This was referenced Jul 26, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
engine_before_write— and those walks write nothing, so it reported "no workflow state was written" and passed regardless of what the prose did.N/A, notPASS. A green tick for absence of coverage is precisely how this went unnoticed.calls_excludeovertopic start/topic reopen/manifest set/knowledge index. What each says it reads becomes acalls_includeover the gate it must render.calls_in_orderis new — the one thing presence could never settle. A gate read after the arm it was supposed to select proves the arm was chosen some other way. Declared commands must appear as a subsequence, anything permitted between them.Verified against live walks
These declarations were derived from each case's claims and its skill's actual calls, then confirmed by running the whole corpus: all eight passed on
claude-sonnet-5, so the gates, orderings and not-called assertions were right as written. No corrections were needed.Test plan
N/AvsPASS🤖 Generated with Claude Code
Stack