Skip to content

Profile Audit Guide

Guide Maps

graph LR
  family["Reproducible Research"]
  program["Deep Dive Make"]
  guide["Capstone docs"]
  section["PROFILE_AUDIT_GUIDE"]
  page["Profile Audit Guide"]
  proof["Proof route"]

  family --> program --> guide --> section --> page
  page -.checks against.-> proof
flowchart LR
  command["Run profile-audit"] --> boundary["Read declared execution settings"]
  boundary --> metrics["Inspect trace and runtime evidence"]
  metrics --> policy["Compare behavior to the stated policy"]
  policy --> review["Return with a concrete performance or boundary judgment"]

Use this guide when the question is about execution policy: trace volume, runtime knobs, tool boundaries, or whether the capstone keeps observability and throughput concerns explicit instead of accidental.

Reading Order

Read the profile audit bundle in this order:

  1. route.txt
  2. README.md
  3. summary.txt
  4. settings.env
  5. trace-count.txt
  6. help.txt
  7. PROOF_GUIDE.md
  8. review-questions.txt

That route keeps declared boundary first, measured evidence second, and interpretation third.

Back to top

What Each File Tells You

File Review purpose
summary.txt shortest description of the audit result
settings.env make binary, shell, and guardrail settings used for the run
trace-count.txt whether observability cost stayed within the declared heuristic
help.txt which targets and variables are exposed publicly
PROOF_GUIDE.md how the profile audit fits into the wider proof surface
review-questions.txt prompts that force you to make an operational judgment

Back to top

What The Audit Should Help You Decide

By the end of the profile audit, you should be able to answer:

  • whether the capstone declares its execution boundary clearly enough for another machine
  • whether trace volume is still a deliberate teaching guardrail instead of drift
  • whether a performance question belongs in the build graph, the harness, or a release path
  • whether the course is presenting execution policy as a first-class design concern

Back to top

Common Review Mistakes

Avoid these:

  • treating trace-count as a benchmark instead of a guardrail
  • assuming portability questions can be answered from output files alone
  • treating profile review as separate from proof or contract review
  • ignoring settings.env and then reasoning from the wrong make binary or shell

Back to top

Best Companion Guides

Use these with the profile audit:

  • PROOF_GUIDE.md
  • SELFTEST_GUIDE.md
  • TARGET_GUIDE.md
  • CONTRACT_AUDIT_GUIDE.md

Back to top