Skip to content

AGENTS.md

Latest commit

 

History

History
396 lines (319 loc) · 18.3 KB

AGENTS.md

File metadata and controls

396 lines (319 loc) · 18.3 KB
Raw

AGENTS.md — Agent Instructions for the Labs Project

Authority and Boundaries

  • Treat every MUST/MUST NOT in CONSTITUTION.md as a hard constraint, not a suggestion. Do not silently relax one to satisfy a user request faster.
  • Do not amend CONSTITUTION.md because a task is easier if a rule were different. If a request conflicts with an Article, say so explicitly and give the user the actual options (see "Handling Conflicts" below) — never comply quietly and never refuse without explaining the alternative.
  • Do not fabricate results. If a validation gate in this file requires a clean-environment run, an Optional Exercise test, or verified output, you must actually execute those steps and report what really happened — not what should happen in theory.

Writing Style

  • Use points (bullets or numbered lists) wherever necessary instead of long paragraphs. When explaining a decision, reporting gate results, listing options, or summarizing a finding, break the content into distinct points rather than dense prose.
  • Keep each point short and scannable — one idea per bullet.
  • Reserve paragraphs for short framing sentences (e.g., one-line context before a list), never for bulk of the message.

Workflow: Creating a New Lab

  1. Decide difficulty level first. Before writing any code, determine whether this is a Beginner, Intermediate, or Advanced lab. This decision drives line limits, explanation density, code style, and library usage. If uncertain, ask the user or propose what you think and let them correct you.

  2. Confirm scope before writing code. Line limits are a reference, not a strict cap (see CQ-1 / Article II in CONSTITUTION.md) — use them to estimate scope and calibrate explanation density, not to truncate or pad a notebook. If the build genuinely needs more lines, it may exceed the reference; prefer a numbered series split (Lab 2a, Lab 2b...) when the content naturally divides.

  3. Start from the 12-section structure in Article I, not a blank file, so no section is skipped or reordered.

  4. Draft sections 1–9 first (title through environment setup) before writing code — the problem statement and tech stack should drive the implementation, not be reverse-engineered from it afterward. Include the difficulty header (e.g., "Difficulty: Intermediate | ~40 min | Requires Lab 3") under the title.

  5. Write code in the style matching the difficulty level as you go: one logical step per cell, markdown explanation calibrated to the learner level, inline comments appropriate to the difficulty (heavy for Beginner, minimal for Advanced). Minimize helper functions — prefer inline code unless the function is called multiple times or teaches a separate concept. Do not write the whole notebook first and add explanations after. The first cell must be a single !pip install <module> <module> ... line (pinned versions, matching Sections 6/9) so learners can install everything by running the first cell (CQ-10 in CONSTITUTION.md; practical notes in GUIDELINES.md). For .py script labs, document requirements.txt in Section 9 instead.

  6. Validate per the five gates below before calling it done:

    • Run the notebook top-to-bottom in a fresh kernel/environment built strictly from your own Section 9 instructions.
    • Actually perform the Optional Exercise (Section 11) and confirm it works.
    • Attempt every exercise in the assignment file and verify the answer key.
    • Capture real output for Section 5 — do not describe expected output from memory.

  7. Run the Article VI Publish Gate as a literal checklist and report the result of each item. Include a specific check: "Does the code complexity and explanation density match the stated difficulty level?" If not, note the gap.

  8. Name files per Article III (UX-4) (see CONSTITUTION.md): each lab ships a matching-slug lab-<topic-slug>.ipynb OR .py plus lab-<topic-slug>.md, and a lab-<topic-slug>-assignment.md of knowledge-check exercises with an answer key (UX-7).

Workflow: Testing a Lab (Applying the Five Gates)

The five gates below are the end-to-end lab validation workflow. Execute them in order after creating or editing a lab — do not skip any gate. A lab cannot pass validation if any gate fails. The gates are defined here in AGENTS.md; they are no longer part of CONSTITUTION.md (see its version history).

Where TEST.md fits: TEST.md (the Comprehensive Testing Guide) is the companion document for designing and running tests on any code the lab or its supporting files ship — general test-case design, the RED → GREEN → REFACTOR TDD cycle, pytest commands, and troubleshooting. When a lab has testable logic, write its tests using TEST.md's framework; the gates below then validate the lab artifact itself (notebook/script + markdown) end to end. The two are complementary, not alternatives.

Test file format is non-negotiable: Test cases MUST be authored in standalone pytest .py files, never inside .ipynb notebooks — see TEST.md's "Mandatory Test File Format" for the full rule and how to relocate tests found in a notebook.

Gate 1: Fresh Environment Setup

  1. Identify where the fresh environment will be created (venv, container, system).
  2. Create that environment from scratch (do not use your current dev environment).
  3. Copy Section 9's instructions exactly and execute them in the fresh environment.
  4. If any command fails, note the error, fix Section 9, and re-run Gate 1 from the start.
  5. Report: "Gate 1 PASSED" or "Gate 1 FAILED: [specific error]".

Gate 2: Clean Run (Restart & Run All)

  1. Open the notebook in the environment from Gate 1.
  2. Clear all outputs: Kernel → Restart & Clear Output.
  3. Run the entire notebook: Cell → Run All.
  4. Do not intervene — let every cell run or fail on its own.
  5. If any cell fails, identify the failure, fix the cell and/or its dependencies, and re-run Gate 2.
  6. Report: "Gate 2 PASSED" or "Gate 2 FAILED: Cell N errored with [error message]".

Gate 3: Output Verification

  1. After Gate 2 passes, inspect the notebook's actual output (tables, plots, values).
  2. Compare to Section 5's description of the expected output.
  3. If Section 5 includes a screenshot or sample values, verify those match.
  4. Note any discrepancies (missing rows, different values, different ordering).
  5. If output diverges, either:
    • Fix the code and re-run Gate 2, then Gate 3 again, OR
    • Update Section 5 to match the actual output and include a screenshot.
  6. Report: "Gate 3 PASSED" or "Gate 3 FAILED: Expected [X], got [Y]".

Gate 4: Optional Exercise Test

  1. Read Section 11 carefully. Understand exactly what modification is being asked for.
  2. Edit the notebook to perform the modification (e.g., swap Weaviate for Milvus).
  3. Run the modified cells.
  4. Verify the output makes sense (it should be similar in structure to the original).
  5. If the exercise fails, identify why and either:
    • Fix the lab code and Section 9 dependencies, OR
    • Rewrite Section 11 to reflect what actually works.
  6. Re-perform the exercise with the fix.
  7. Report: "Gate 4 PASSED" or "Gate 4 FAILED: [specific issue with the exercise]".

Gate 5: Reviewer Walkthrough

  1. This gate requires a human reviewer. You cannot perform this gate yourself.
  2. Prepare a summary report from Gates 1–4 and hand it to the reviewer.
  3. Instruct the reviewer to:
    • Read the markdown file (all 12 sections).
    • Follow Section 9 to set up a fresh environment.
    • Run the notebook top-to-bottom in that environment.
    • Attempt the Optional Exercise.
    • Report any confusion, errors, or unclear explanations.
  4. Collect feedback from the reviewer.
  5. Address feedback: fix the issues they found (code, documentation, or both).
  6. Document the feedback and fixes in your test report.
  7. Report: "Gate 5 PASSED (Reviewer: [name], Feedback: [summary])" or "Gate 5 FAILED: [unresolved feedback]".

Testing report template:

Lab: [lab-name]
Difficulty: [Beginner/Intermediate/Advanced]
Tester: [You]
Date: [YYYY-MM-DD]

Gate 1 (Fresh Environment): PASSED / FAILED
[Notes if failed; specific error and fix]

Gate 2 (Restart & Run All): PASSED / FAILED
[Notes if failed; which cell failed and why]

Gate 3 (Output Verification): PASSED / FAILED
[Notes if failed; what diverged from Section 5]

Gate 4 (Optional Exercise): PASSED / FAILED
[Notes if failed; what went wrong with the exercise]

Gate 5 (Reviewer Walkthrough): PASSED / FAILED
[Reviewer name, date, key feedback, how issues were resolved]

Overall: READY TO PUBLISH / NEEDS REWORK

Recording pytest results to .xlsx:

Every test run (any gate, any re-run) must also be saved as an .xlsx workbook so the outcome is reviewable without re-running pytest. The markdown report above is the human summary; the workbook is the machine-readable, per-test record. Use the JUnit XML + openpyxl route (below) rather than a pytest plugin — it needs no extra pytest dependencies and the .xlsx is fully under our control.

Step 1 — emit machine-readable results with pytest's JUnit XML report:

pytest test_agent.py -v --junitxml=test-results/junit-test_agent.xml

Step 2 — convert to .xlsx with scripts/pytest_to_xlsx.py (keep it in the project root if there is no scripts/ dir). Requires only openpyxl:

python scripts/pytest_to_xlsx.py test-results/junit-test_agent.xml test-results/test_agent_2026-08-10.xlsx

Standard structure for the .xlsx entries:

Sheet Column / Row What goes here
Test Results Test ID pytest node id, e.g. test_agent.py::TestCalculatorTool::test_add_two_numbers
Test Name the test method name, e.g. test_add_two_numbers
File module file, e.g. test_agent.py
Class test class, or blank if none
Status PASSED / FAILED / ERROR / SKIPPED (derive from JUnit XML)
Duration (s) per-test wall time from the XML time attribute
Failure Message first line of the failure/error message, blank if passed
Run Summary Key/Value rows Total tests, Passed, Failed, Errors, Skipped, Pass rate (%), Total duration (s), Timestamp

One row per test case in Test Results, one row per metric in Run Summary. File naming: test_<slug>_<YYYY-MM-DD>.xlsx. Reference script:

"""pytest_to_xlsx.py — convert a pytest JUnit XML report to .xlsx.

Usage: python pytest_to_xlsx.py <junit-xml> <output.xlsx>
"""
import sys
import xml.etree.ElementTree as ET

from openpyxl import Workbook
from openpyxl.styles import Font, PatternFill
from openpyxl.utils import get_column_letter

HEADER_FILL = PatternFill("solid", fgColor="DDEBF7")
STATUS_FILL = {
    "PASSED": PatternFill("solid", fgColor="C6EFCE"),
    "FAILED": PatternFill("solid", fgColor="FFC7CE"),
    "ERROR": PatternFill("solid", fgColor="FFC7CE"),
    "SKIPPED": PatternFill("solid", fgColor="FFEB9C"),
}


def status_of(testcase):
    if testcase.find("failure") is not None:
        return "FAILED"
    if testcase.find("error") is not None:
        return "ERROR"
    if testcase.find("skipped") is not None:
        return "SKIPPED"
    return "PASSED"


def message_of(testcase):
    for tag in ("failure", "error"):
        el = testcase.find(tag)
        if el is not None:
            first = (el.get("message") or el.text or "").strip()
            return first.splitlines()[0] if first else "(no message)"
    return ""


def autosize(ws):
    for col in range(1, ws.max_column + 1):
        width = max(len(str(ws.cell(row=r, column=col).value or ""))
                    for r in range(1, ws.max_row + 1))
        ws.column_dimensions[get_column_letter(col)].width = min(width + 2, 60)


def main(junit_path, out_path):
    root = ET.parse(junit_path).getroot()
    suites = list(root.iter("testsuite"))

    wb = Workbook()
    ws = wb.active
    ws.title = "Test Results"
    headers = ["Test ID", "Test Name", "File", "Class",
               "Status", "Duration (s)", "Failure Message"]
    ws.append(headers)
    for cell in ws[1]:
        cell.font = Font(bold=True)
        cell.fill = HEADER_FILL
    ws.freeze_panes = "A2"

    for suite in suites:
        for tc in suite.iter("testcase"):
            classname = tc.get("classname", "")
            parts = classname.split(".")
            file_, klass = parts[0], ".".join(parts[1:])
            status = status_of(tc)
            row = ws.max_row + 1
            ws.append([f"{classname}::{tc.get('name')}", tc.get("name"),
                       file_, klass, status,
                       float(tc.get("time", 0) or 0), message_of(tc)])
            ws.cell(row=row, column=5).fill = STATUS_FILL.get(status, HEADER_FILL)
    autosize(ws)

    total = sum(int(s.get("tests", 0)) for s in suites)
    failures = sum(int(s.get("failures", 0)) for s in suites)
    errors = sum(int(s.get("errors", 0)) for s in suites)
    skipped = sum(int(s.get("skipped", 0)) for s in suites)
    passed = total - failures - errors - skipped

    ws2 = wb.create_sheet("Run Summary")
    rows = [
        ("Total tests", total),
        ("Passed", passed),
        ("Failed", failures),
        ("Errors", errors),
        ("Skipped", skipped),
        ("Pass rate (%)", round(passed / total * 100, 2) if total else 0),
        ("Total duration (s)", round(sum(float(s.get("time", 0) or 0) for s in suites), 3)),
        ("Timestamp", suites[0].get("timestamp", "") if suites else ""),
    ]
    ws2.append(["Key", "Value"])
    for cell in ws2[1]:
        cell.font = Font(bold=True)
        cell.fill = HEADER_FILL
    for key, value in rows:
        ws2.append([key, value])
    autosize(ws2)

    wb.save(out_path)
    print(f"Wrote {out_path}")


if __name__ == "__main__":
    main(sys.argv[1], sys.argv[2])

Workflow: Reviewing or Editing an Existing Lab

  1. Before claiming a lab still works, re-run all five gates — dependency drift is common and silent.
  2. If an edit changes line count, re-check it against Article II's reference line ceiling for the difficulty level — the limit is a reference, not a strict cap, so flag significant overages but don't force truncation.
  3. If an edit changes any of Sections 1–12, re-check Article III (UX-3) consistency against at least one other published lab at the same difficulty level.
  4. If you edit the assignment file, re-attempt its exercises and verify the answer key still matches the (possibly changed) lab.
  5. Re-run all five gates after any non-trivial edit, not just the tests you think changed.
  6. If you make structural changes (e.g., add a new cell early in the pipeline), report which gates needed re-testing.
  7. If a lab no longer runs, pull it or flag it with a visible "known issue" banner immediately — a broken lab is worse than no lab.

Handling Gate Failures

If a gate fails, do not skip it or move forward with an incomplete test. A lab cannot publish without all gates passing. Each gate's own definition above already states its failure rule (fix the cause, re-run that gate — and Gate 1 where the environment is involved — from the top, then move on). Beyond that:

When to escalate to the user:

  • A gate fails and the fix is ambiguous (e.g., "the output doesn't match, but I'm not sure if the code or docs are wrong").
  • A gate fails due to missing information (e.g., "I don't have the API key for this service").
  • The user explicitly asks to skip a gate or bypass a test — surface the request explicitly and explain what quality risk it creates.

Handling Conflicts Between a Request and the Constitution

When a user asks for something that would violate an Article (e.g., "just make this one lab 300 lines," "skip testing the exercise, we're on a deadline"):

  1. Name the specific Article being asked to bend.
  2. Give the real options: split into a series, get an explicit constitution amendment first (see Governance in CONSTITUTION.md), or proceed and flag the lab as non-compliant until it's brought back in line.
  3. Do not proceed silently under either interpretation — surface the tradeoff and let the user decide.

Maintaining Difficulty Level Consistency

Labs are part of a catalog. If one Beginner lab explains every line and another skips explanations, the consistency promise breaks. When reviewing or editing (see GUIDELINES.md for the difficulty-level details):

  • Check against peer labs. Before publishing, skim one or two other labs at the same difficulty level. Does the explanation density match? Does the code complexity seem consistent?
  • Flag divergence explicitly. If this lab's explanation is notably lighter or heavier than its peer difficulty level, call it out in the Publish Gate review — it's a legitimate gap to fix.
  • Calibrate the header line to match the actual content, not the intended difficulty. If a lab claims "Beginner" but requires deep domain knowledge, the header is wrong, not the lab — update it.

Citing the Constitution

When explaining a decision (line splits, comment density, why a lab was flagged), cite the Article by number — e.g., "split into 2a/2b per Article II's line reference." This keeps the constitution the visible authority behind every decision, rather than an agent's unstated judgment call.

Including Mermaid Diagrams

Default to including a Mermaid diagram when Section 7 (Underlying Concepts) involves any flow, pipeline, architecture, workflow, relationship, or decision tree — don't wait for the user to ask. The rules are in CONSTITUTION.md (Section 5) and the worked examples/checklist are in GUIDELINES.md. Key points:

  • Scan Section 7 as you draft it and plan a diagram whenever the concept is visual.
  • Skip deliberately only when a one-sentence explanation suffices.
  • Test the diagram in markdown before publishing, and pair it with prose.
  • Beginner labs especially benefit from a visual pipeline — if in doubt, include one.

Amending the Constitution

Only amend CONSTITUTION.md when the user explicitly asks for a governance change. When you do:

  • Follow the amendment process already defined in its Governance section (rationale, review, compatibility note on existing labs).
  • Bump the version per the semantic versioning rules already in that file.
  • Update the Sync Impact Report comment at the top of the file.
  • Never bundle a constitution amendment with an unrelated lab-building task in the same silent step — call it out as its own action.