Skip to content

Profile Audit Guide

Guide Maps

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

  family --> program --> guide --> section --> page
  page -.checks against.-> proof
flowchart LR
  orient["Read the guide boundary"] --> inspect["Inspect the named files, targets, or artifacts"]
  inspect --> run["Run the confirm, demo, selftest, or proof command"]
  run --> compare["Compare output with the stated contract"]
  compare --> review["Return to the course claim with evidence"]

Use this guide when the question is about execution policy rather than product behavior: tool assumptions, shell expectations, GNU Make features, or variable precedence. This bundle is an audit route, not a benchmark report.

Reading order

Read the profile audit bundle in this order:

  1. route.txt
  2. portability.txt
  3. mk/contract.mk
  4. help.txt
  5. TARGET_GUIDE.md
  6. origins.txt
  7. PROOF_GUIDE.md
  8. review-questions.txt

This keeps declared boundary first, published interface second, and precedence evidence third.

What each file tells you

File Review purpose
portability.txt records the toolchain, shell, and GNU Make feature boundary
mk/contract.mk shows where the policy and platform assumptions are declared in code
help.txt shows which targets and variables are actually published
TARGET_GUIDE.md explains how the public targets are meant to be used
origins.txt captures variable-origin information for precedence review
PROOF_GUIDE.md shows how this audit connects to the wider proof surface
review-questions.txt forces a concrete judgment instead of vague unease

What the audit should help you decide

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

  • which assumptions are hard requirements of this repository
  • which parts of the command surface are stable enough for review
  • which variables are intended to be overridden, and from which sources
  • whether a portability concern belongs in policy, documentation, or a stronger proof route

Common review mistakes

Avoid these:

  • treating this audit as a performance benchmark
  • reasoning about portability without reading mk/contract.mk
  • reviewing variable precedence from memory instead of origins.txt
  • assuming every documented command is part of the stable public surface without checking help.txt

Companion guides

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