Skip to content

Review Checklist

Reviewing changes in bijux-proteomics-knowledge should include both behavior and documentation.

The checklist is not here to slow people down with ceremony. It is here to stop fast review from becoming shallow review when a change touches boundaries, contracts, or proof.

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

Visual Summary

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

Checklist

  • did ownership stay inside the correct package boundary
  • do interface or artifact changes have matching docs and tests
  • are filenames, commit messages, and symbols still clear enough to age well

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 Review Checklist to decide whether bijux-proteomics-knowledge 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 bijux-proteomics-knowledge 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 bijux-proteomics-knowledge 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 a compact review lens for package changes.

Stability

Update it only when the package review posture genuinely changes.