Skip to content

Self-Review Prompts

Reference Position

flowchart TD
  family["Python Programming"] --> program["Python Functional Programming"]
  program --> reference["Self-Review Prompts"]
  reference --> review["Design or review decision"]
  review --> capstone["Capstone proof surface"]
flowchart TD
  trigger["Hit a naming, boundary, or trade-off question"] --> lookup["Use this page as a glossary, map, rubric, or atlas"]
  lookup --> compare["Compare the current code or workflow against the boundary"]
  compare --> decision["Turn the comparison into a keep, change, or reject call"]

Read the first diagram as a lookup map: this page is part of the review shelf, not a first-read narrative. Read the second diagram as the reference rhythm: arrive with a concrete ambiguity, compare the current work against the boundary on the page, then turn that comparison into a decision.

Use these prompts after each module to check whether the course ideas are becoming operational rather than just familiar.

Modules 01 to 03

  • Can I point to one pure transform and explain exactly why it is substitutable?
  • Can I explain where configuration enters the pipeline and why it is not ambient state?
  • Can I identify where the system stays lazy and where it must materialize?

Modules 04 to 06

  • Can I explain which failures belong in the data model and which should stop execution?
  • Can I justify the modelling choice for one domain value instead of calling it taste?
  • Can I trace one lawful chain and explain why regrouping it will not change behavior?

Modules 07 to 08

  • Can I name the capability or protocol that protects one effectful boundary?
  • Can I explain where cleanup happens and how retries avoid making the situation worse?
  • Can I show where async work is described and where it is actually driven?

Modules 09 to 10

  • Can I explain why an interop layer preserves the core model instead of eroding it?
  • Can I point to evidence for one performance or observability claim?
  • Can I explain how this codebase could evolve without losing its design contracts?