Local Development¶

Local development should happen inside packages/agentic-proteins with tests and docs updated in the same change series as the code.

The point is not to prescribe one favorite workflow. It is to keep local work close enough to the owning package that changes remain easy to explain and easy to validate before they spread outward.

Treat the operations pages for agentic-proteins as the package's explicit operating memory. They should make common tasks repeatable without relearning the workflow from logs or oral history.

Visual Summary¶

flowchart TB
    page["Local Development<br/>clarifies: repeat workflows | find diagnostics | release safely"]
    classDef page fill:#dbeafe,stroke:#1d4ed8,color:#1e3a8a,stroke-width:2px;
    classDef positive fill:#dcfce7,stroke:#16a34a,color:#14532d;
    classDef caution fill:#fee2e2,stroke:#dc2626,color:#7f1d1d;
    classDef anchor fill:#ede9fe,stroke:#7c3aed,color:#4c1d95;
    classDef action fill:#fef3c7,stroke:#d97706,color:#7c2d12;
    step1["packages/agentic-proteins/pyproject.toml"]
    step1 --> page
    step2["CLI entrypoint in src/agentic_proteins/interfaces/cli.py"]
    step2 --> page
    step3["HTTP app in src/agentic_proteins/api/v1"]
    step3 --> page
    run1["tests/unit for api, contracts, core, interfaces, model, and runtime"]
    page --> run1
    run2["tests/e2e for governed flow behavior"]
    page --> run2
    run3["tests/regression and tests/smoke for replay and storage protection"]
    page --> run3
    release1["pyproject.toml"]
    run1 --> release1
    release2["README.md"]
    run2 --> release2
    release3["CHANGELOG.md"]
    run3 --> release3
    class page page;
    class step1,step2,step3 positive;
    class run1,run2,run3 anchor;
    class release1,release2,release3 action;

Development Anchors¶

tests/unit for api, contracts, core, interfaces, model, and runtime
tests/e2e for governed flow behavior
tests/regression and tests/smoke for replay and storage protection
tests/golden for durable example fixtures

Concrete Anchors¶

packages/agentic-proteins/pyproject.toml for package metadata
packages/agentic-proteins/README.md for local package framing
packages/agentic-proteins/tests for executable operational backstops

Use This Page When¶

you are installing, running, diagnosing, or releasing the package
you need repeatable operational anchors rather than architectural framing
you are responding to package behavior in local work, CI, or incident pressure

Decision Rule¶

Use Local Development to decide whether a maintainer can repeat the package workflow from checked-in assets instead of memory. If a step works only because someone already knows the trick, the workflow is not documented clearly enough yet.

What This Page Answers¶

how agentic-proteins is installed, run, diagnosed, and released in practice
which checked-in files and tests anchor the operational story
where a maintainer should look first when the package behaves differently

Reviewer Lens¶

verify that setup, workflow, and release statements still match package metadata and current commands
check that operational guidance still points at real diagnostics and validation paths
confirm that maintainer advice still works under current local and CI expectations

Honesty Boundary¶

This page explains how agentic-proteins is expected to be operated, but it does not replace package metadata, actual runtime behavior, or validation in a real environment. A workflow is only trustworthy if a maintainer can still repeat it from the checked-in assets named here.

Next Checks¶

move to interfaces when the operational path depends on a specific surface contract
move to quality when the question becomes whether the workflow is sufficiently proven
move back to architecture when operational complexity suggests a structural problem

Purpose¶

This page records the package-local development posture.

Stability¶

Keep it aligned with the actual test layout and maintenance workflow.