Dedupe CLAUDE.md testing rules into AGENTS.md pointer; untrack agent memory scratch

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <[email protected]>
This commit is contained in:
thePR0M3TH3ANandClaude Fable 5 committed 2026-08-12 15:15:08 -04:00
1 parent c098612c94
commit 6eb89afcec
3 files changed
+7 -75

No files matched your search

+4
View File
@@ -23,3 +23,7 @@ TEST_LOG.mdtest_logs/nip-hits.txt
# Local site archive for manual nsite upload (npm run archive)
bitvid-site.zip
.env*
# Agent runtime state (local only)
memory-update.md
memory-update.json
+3 -72
View File
@@ -2,6 +2,8 @@
This document provides context and guidance for AI assistants working with the bitvid codebase. It explains the project structure, development workflows, conventions, and key architectural decisions.
**Canonical guidance:** `AGENTS.md` is the canonical agent guidance for this repo; `CLAUDE.md` holds Claude-oriented codebase orientation that layers on top of it.
---
## Project Overview
@@ -326,78 +328,7 @@ Resilience invariants — **do not regress**:
## Testing & Validation: Scenario-First, Cheat-Resistant (Dark Factory Rules)
You are operating inside a “Dark Factory” workflow where **validation replaces human code review**. Passing tests is only meaningful if tests are truthful.
### Prime directive
**Never alter a test merely to make it pass.**
If you change tests to match buggy behavior, you are destroying the only feedback signal and producing code with no real-world value.
StrongDM describes the exact failure mode we are preventing: agents discovering shortcuts (“return true”) and narrow tests being reward-hacked, leading to a shift from “tests” to scenario-based validation.
### How to think about tests here
Tests are not procedural checklists. They are **behavioral specifications**:
- Write tests as **scenarios** (Given/When/Then or equivalent).
- Assert **externally observable outcomes** at boundaries.
- Avoid “testing the implementation” (internal call sequences, private methods, mirrored logic).
- Prefer deterministic/harmonic execution: fixed seeds, controlled clocks, hermetic IO, virtualized dependencies.
### Prohibited behaviors (reward-hacking patterns)
Do NOT:
- weaken assertions, broaden tolerances, or reduce coverage to get green
- update snapshots/goldens without proving the change is intended behavior
- add retries/sleeps/timeouts to hide flakes
- mock so heavily that tests can pass with a broken system
- “hard-code to the test” (single fixtures, single input paths, brittle constants)
### Allowed test changes: Spec Correction Protocol
You may change test expectations only if the test is wrong relative to intended behavior.
Required steps:
1) Identify the scenario/spec that defines correct behavior.
2) Explain why the previous expectation was incorrect.
3) Replace it with an equally strict (or stricter) behavioral assertion.
4) Provide a **Test Integrity Note** (machine-readable) documenting the change.
If you cannot justify a change with scenario/spec truth: **do not change the test**. Instead, output a “Needs Spec Clarification” note and propose candidate scenarios.
### Required output when you touch tests
Include this YAML block in your PR description (or reference it from a `TEST_INTEGRITY.md` entry):
```yaml
test_integrity_note:
change_type: ["new_tests" | "refactor_tests" | "spec_correction" | "flake_fix"]
scenarios:
- id: SCN-<slug>
given: "<preconditions>"
when: "<stimulus>"
then: "<observable outcomes>"
observable_outcomes:
- "<boundary/output asserted>"
determinism_controls:
- "<fixed seed / fake clock / hermetic env / service virtualization>"
anti_cheat_rationale:
prevents:
- "hard-coded return value"
- "over-mocking internal logic"
- "snapshot rubber-stamping"
- "retry/sleep-based flake masking"
relaxation:
did_relax_any_assertion: false
if_true_explain_spec_basis: ""
```
### If external services are involved
Prefer boundary-level service virtualization (“digital twins” / behavioral clones) so scenario tests remain:
- high fidelity (realistic edge cases)
- deterministic and replayable
- not rate-limited / not flaky
(StrongDM’s “Digital Twin Universe” is the reference pattern.)
The testing and validation rules are canonical in `AGENTS.md` — see its "Testing & Validation" section, §16 "Scenario-First Tests & Test Integrity (Dark Factory Standard)". In short: validation replaces human code review here, tests are behavioral scenarios that assert externally observable outcomes at boundaries, and you must **never alter a test merely to make it pass** — expectation changes are allowed only via the Spec Correction Protocol with an accompanying Test Integrity Note. Read AGENTS.md §16 in full before adding or modifying any test.
---
-3
View File
@@ -1,3 +0,0 @@
- The `docs-code-investigator` successfully analyzed and documented `js/historyView.js`.
- JSDoc annotations were appended to the `js/historyView.js` public API to adhere to the strict `no-behavioral-changes` constraint.
- A comprehensive overview markdown file was successfully created at `docs/historyView-overview.md`.