Skip to content

Change Validation

Validation after a change should target the package surfaces that were actually touched.

This page is about choosing proof that matches the real risk. Strong validation is not just more testing; it is testing and review aimed at the seam that moved.

Treat the quality pages for agentic-proteins as the proof frame around the package. They should show how trust is earned and where skepticism still belongs.

Visual Summary

flowchart TB
    page["Change Validation<br/>clarifies: see proof | see limitations | judge done-ness"]
    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;
    proof1["tests/unit for api, contracts, core, interfaces, model, and runtime"]
    proof1 --> page
    proof2["tests/e2e for governed flow behavior"]
    proof2 --> page
    proof3["tests/regression and tests/smoke for replay and storage protection"]
    proof3 --> page
    risk1["README.md"]
    risk1 -.keeps trust honest.-> page
    risk2["CHANGELOG.md"]
    risk2 -.keeps trust honest.-> page
    risk3["pyproject.toml"]
    risk3 -.keeps trust honest.-> page
    bar1["proof before confidence"]
    page --> bar1
    bar2["done means defended behavior"]
    page --> bar2
    bar3["package trust after change"]
    page --> bar3
    class page page;
    class proof1,proof2,proof3 positive;
    class risk1,risk2,risk3 caution;
    class bar1,bar2,bar3 action;

Validation Targets

  • interface changes should update interface docs and owning tests
  • artifact changes should update artifact docs and consuming tests
  • architectural changes should update section pages that explain the package seam

Test 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

  • tests/unit for api, contracts, core, interfaces, model, and runtime
  • tests/e2e for governed flow behavior
  • README.md

Use This Page When

  • you are reviewing tests, invariants, limitations, or ongoing risks
  • you need evidence that the documented contract is actually defended
  • you are deciding whether a change is truly done rather than merely implemented

Decision Rule

Use Change Validation to decide whether agentic-proteins has actually earned trust after a change. If one narrow green check hides a wider contract, risk, or validation gap, the work is not done yet.

What This Page Answers

  • what currently proves the agentic-proteins contract instead of merely describing it
  • which risks, limits, and assumptions still need explicit skepticism
  • what a reviewer should be able to say before accepting a change as done

Reviewer Lens

  • compare the documented proof story with the actual test layout and release posture
  • look for limitations or risks that should have moved with recent behavior changes
  • verify that the claimed done-ness standard still reflects real validation practice

Honesty Boundary

This page explains how agentic-proteins is supposed to earn trust, but it does not claim that prose alone is enough. If the listed tests, checks, and review practice stop backing the story, the story has to change.

Next Checks

  • move to foundation when the risk appears to be boundary confusion rather than missing tests
  • move to architecture when the proof gap points to structural drift
  • move to interfaces or operations when the proof question is really about a contract or workflow

Purpose

This page records how to choose meaningful validation for package work.

Stability

Keep it aligned with the package's current test layout and docs structure.