SuperAPI AI Directory
Partner中文AI newsFavorites
Skillsmino-reproducible-development

mino-reproducible-development

Coding & development

View repository

Updated 10-15 21:03

About this skill

Reproducible Development Router

Outcome Contract

design is the Implementation Spec, implementation is the Verified Change, review is the Review Result, and reproduction-test is the Reproduction Report. Integrate the necessary specialized artifacts and the trace of existing IDs. The root of the authoritative package isreproducible_development_result. Supported modes: design, implementation, review, reproduction-test.

Reference Routing

  • The first time, readskills/mino-core/references/shared-policies.mdand apply Evidence, approval, and verdicts. If it has already been read in the same context, do not read it again. Make ordinary decisions using the main body and these common rules.
  • For normalization of requirements and inter-artifact trace, readskills/mino-core/references/requirements-and-traceability.md; for changes to existing behavior, readskills/mino-core/references/change-safety.md.
  • only the reproduction-testskills/mino-reproducible-development/references/reproduction.mdand create an isolated execution and comparison result.
  • For problem definition,$mino-problem-framing; for quality, authoritative source, and migration,$mino-architecture-quality-strategy; for missing models,$mino-domain-model-completeness; for condition guarantees,$mino-design-by-contract; for public boundaries,$mino-interface-implementation-separation; request only the necessary artifacts.
  • If there are requirements for file/process/test execution on the target system or multiple OSes, readskills/mino-core/references/platform-compatibility.mdand separate host, target, and verification layer. Do not read anything additional merely to save a record of an answer.
  • Only when asked to create, update, or hand over the authoritative package, readskills/mino-reproducible-development/schemas/package.mdand preserve the required fields and existing references.

Workflow

  1. If the main artifact is a single specialized design, pass it once to the corresponding Skill and finish. Proceed only for the scope that requires integration of two or more artifacts or of implementation and verification from requirements.
  2. Align requirements, approvals, revisions, and change boundaries, and either create requirements and rejection conditions or reference existing ones. Define run_if, inputs, dependencies, and artifact owner for each specialized task. Do not repeat processes already satisfied by existing artifacts.
  3. The principle is problem definition -> necessary quality/terminology organization -> model -> contract -> boundary -> implementation/verification. Execution of all Skills is not required. Only independent parts whose inputs are already fixed can be parallelized.
  4. When division of labor is beneficial, pass to the child the scope, artifacts, permitted Evidence, revision, mode, change authority, termination conditions, and return to caller. A design-only child must be read-only even if the parent is in implementation. Do not let children re-route to peers/router, and do not duplicate writers for the same file. If there is no tool, perform sequentially and record it.
  5. Register each artifact by handle and revision. Preserve each Skill's owner, unknown, coverage, and subject_verdict, and connect obligations to existing IDs such as CI/T created later. Do not merge the same local ID by string matching. Summaries must have references to the authoritative source, and the same content must not be duplicated as a different version.
  6. Before implementation, confirm the trace from requirements -> relevant model/contract/boundary -> test/oracle. Proceed with small single-purpose steps within the permitted scope of implementation, and stop only operations that depend on unclear or unapproved choices. Do not require re-approval of the investment ranking of already selected targets.
  7. The parent verifies the child's claims against the primary sources, actual code, and tests. Distinguish deterministic execution results from independent review. For independent review, provide the requirements, contract, revision, diff, and necessary code, and do not inject the implementer's conclusions as the answer. Do not treat a fork of the same history or self-review as independent evaluation.
  8. Invalidate only results that depend on the new instructions and the revision diff. Do not treat stale/pending/timeout as success. Return if the necessary checks pass and there are no concerns or new diffs.

Hard Gates

  • Do not create empty packages to fill in non-applicability of specialized deliverables. Do not uniformly require idempotency keys, migrations, and investment evaluation.
  • Do not lose the Function's ID, authority, unknowns, or verification status in the summary. Do not treat the child's vote or structural inspection as evidence of implementation correctness.
  • Review alone does not edit the target system. If a fix is requested, update the authority and effective mode.

Completion

Return the primary deliverable of the current mode, unresolved obligations, and Evidence of changes and verification. Do not mark something as verified based on the name Verified Change alone. Distinguish between the absence of the current artifact and a subsequent halt of a completed conditional design.