Skip to content

Bundle Guide

Guide Maps

graph LR
  inspect["inspect bundle"] --> shape["Public shape review"]
  tour["tour bundle"] --> story["Walkthrough review"]
  verify["verify-report bundle"] --> proof["Executable proof review"]
flowchart LR
  question["What kind of saved review do you need?"] --> bundle["Choose the closest bundle"]
  bundle --> route["Read route.txt and bundle-manifest.json"]
  route --> compare["Compare outputs before reopening source"]

Use this guide when the capstone's saved artifacts are useful but the directory-level review story is still fuzzy. The goal is to make the three bundle routes feel like one coherent proof shelf.

Choose the bundle by review need

If you need to review... Choose this bundle Do not start with
public runtime shape without invocation inspect bundle verify-report bundle
one saved learner-facing story from manifest to trace tour bundle inspect bundle plus ad hoc commands
strongest saved executable confirmation verify-report bundle confirm output alone

Bundles at a glance

Bundle Built by Best use
inspect bundle make inspect review public manifest, registry, plugin, and signature shape without invocation
tour bundle make tour review one saved learner-facing route from public shape into concrete invocation and trace
verify-report bundle make verify-report review executable proof together with saved public-surface evidence

What the bundle manifest adds

Each bundle also includes bundle-manifest.json, which records:

  • file paths
  • file sizes
  • SHA-256 hashes

That manifest is useful when you want to confirm exactly what the saved review route produced without diffing every file manually.

Use bundle-manifest.json to review the saved inventory. Use the bundle's content files to review the metaprogramming claim itself.

Best companion guides

Good stopping point

Stop when you can name which saved bundle matches the current review need and why the other two bundles would be either weaker or unnecessarily heavy.