Skip to content

Invariants

Invariants are the promises that should survive ordinary implementation change.

This page names the truths the package is trying hardest not to lose. If an invariant changes, that should feel more like a design event than a routine code edit.

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

Visual Summary

flowchart LR
    page["Invariants<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/integration and tests/e2e for end-to-end workflow behavior"]
    proof1 --> page
    proof2["tests/invariants for package promises that should not drift"]
    proof2 --> page
    proof3["tests/unit for local behavior and utility coverage"]
    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["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;

Invariant Anchors

  • package boundary stays explicit
  • interface and artifact contracts remain reviewable
  • tests continue to prove the long-lived promises

Supporting Tests

  • tests/unit for local behavior and utility coverage
  • tests/integration and tests/e2e for end-to-end workflow behavior
  • tests/invariants for package promises that should not drift
  • tests/api for HTTP-facing validation

Concrete Anchors

  • tests/unit for local behavior and utility coverage
  • tests/integration and tests/e2e for end-to-end workflow 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 Invariants to decide whether bijux-canon-agent 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-canon-agent 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-canon-agent 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 the kinds of promises that should not drift casually.

Stability

Keep it aligned with invariant-focused tests and documented package guarantees.