proof-of-work
Enforces "prove before claim" discipline - validation, testing, and evidence requirements before declaring work complete. Use when claiming work is complete, recommending solutions, or finishing implementations, improvement validated, workflow optimized, performance improved, or issue resolved. Do n
Оригинален текст · няма потвърден превод на българскиПърво прочетете инструкцията.
Файлът се зарежда от посочения източник само по ваше действие. Можете да го прочетете тук, да го копирате или да го запазите като .md.
GitHub хранилище- Звезди на репото
- 337
- Лиценз
- Не е посочен. Проверете в репозитория.
- Последна проверка на записа
- Няма посочена дата
Добавете в своя инструмент.
Командата отваря избора на skills от репозитория. Прочетете файла и условията на автора преди изпълнение.
npx skills add athola/claude-night-marketСтраницата копира текст. Не инсталира и не изпълнява нищо на устройството ви.
Откъс от SKILL.md
Началото на файла на автора, без превод.
"It looks correct" is not "I verified it works." Proof-of-work is the discipline of closing that gap: reproducible evidence before any claim that a task is done.
Proof of Work
When NOT To Use
- Planning before implementation (use
imbue:karpathy-principles) - Deciding whether the work is in scope (use
imbue:scope-guard)
Overview
The "Proof of Work" methodology prevents premature completion claims by requiring technical verification before stating that a task is finished. For example, instead of assuming an LSP configuration functions after a restart, we verify that the server starts and that tools respond to queries. This approach confirms the solution works before the user attempts validation.
Before claiming completion, provide reproducible evidence of the solution's performance and address edge cases. All claims must be backed by actual command output captured in the current environment.
The Iron Law
NO IMPLEMENTATION WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST NO COMPLETION CLAIM WITHOUT EVIDENCE FIRST NO CODE WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING FIRST
The Iron Law prevents testing from becoming a perfunctory exercise. If an implementation is planned before tests are written, the RED phase fails to drive the design. Understand the technical rationale for an approach and its limitations before declaring it done. Before writing code, document evidence of the failure being addressed and confirm that tests are driving the implementation.
Verification and TDD Workflow
Verify the fundamentals of the implementation and the reasons for choosing it over alternatives. Identify where a solution might fail rather than stating it should always work. The TDD cycle follows these mandatory steps:
- RED: Write a failing test before implementation.
- GREEN: Create a minimal implementation that passes the test.
- REFACTOR: Improve the code without changing its behavior.
Iron Law Self-Check
| Self-Check Question | If Answer Is Wrong | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Do I have documented evidence of failure/need? | No | STOP, document failure first |
| Am I testing pre-conceived implementation? | Yes | STOP, let test DRIVE design |
| Am I feeling design uncertainty? | No | STOP - uncertainty is GOOD |
| Did test drive implementation? | No | STOP - doing it backwards |