Skip to content

Module Checkpoints

Page Maps

graph LR
  family["Reproducible Research"]
  program["Deep Dive Make"]
  section["Guides"]
  page["Module Checkpoints"]
  capstone["Capstone evidence"]

  family --> program --> section --> page
  page -.applies in.-> capstone
flowchart LR
  orient["Orient on the page map"] --> read["Read the main claim and examples"]
  read --> inspect["Inspect the related code, proof, or capstone surface"]
  inspect --> verify["Run or review the verification path"]
  verify --> apply["Apply the idea back to the module and capstone"]

Use this page when you are about to move on and want an honest readiness bar. Reading a module once is not the same thing as owning it. These checkpoints are meant to tell you whether the next module will build on stable ground or on vague recognition.

How to use this page

For each module:

  1. answer the checkpoint question without looking at the module
  2. run the listed proof route or inspection step
  3. stop if you still cannot explain the result in plain language

If you need to reread, reread the narrowest lesson that matches the gap instead of the whole module.

Readiness table

Module You are ready to move on when you can explain... Quick proof or inspection route Go back when...
Module 01 why one target rebuilt and why another stayed up to date make --trace all on a tiny build or the module exercise you still describe Make as "running commands in order"
Module 02 what makes concurrent targets safe instead of merely lucky make -j8 all plus one race repro from the module you can spot the symptom but not the dishonest edge
Module 03 the difference between runtime tests and build-system proof make PROGRAM=reproducible-research/deep-dive-make test you treat a passing binary as proof that the graph is healthy
Module 04 which semantic rule explains a surprising build decision make -p or make --trace <target> on the relevant example you are still naming "weird Make behavior" instead of a rule
Module 05 which assumptions belong in declared policy instead of habit make PROGRAM=reproducible-research/deep-dive-make capstone-contract-audit your explanation depends on one maintainer's machine
Module 06 where generated outputs enter the graph and when they should publish gmake -C programs/reproducible-research/deep-dive-make/capstone --trace dyn the generator still feels like side-effect magic
Module 07 which file owns public targets, policy, discovery, and reusable mechanics make PROGRAM=reproducible-research/deep-dive-make inspect you can name files but not responsibilities
Module 08 what belongs in a source or release artifact and why gmake -C programs/reproducible-research/deep-dive-make/capstone source-baseline-check or source-bundle you are still mixing proof residue with publishable source
Module 09 which evidence would narrow a slow or flaky build before edits begin make PROGRAM=reproducible-research/deep-dive-make capstone-incident-audit you are changing the build before you can name the boundary
Module 10 how to improve an inherited build without losing proof and trust make PROGRAM=reproducible-research/deep-dive-make capstone-confirm your migration plan is mostly stylistic preference

Common false positives

Do not call a module done just because:

  • the examples felt familiar
  • you can repeat the vocabulary
  • the strongest command passed once
  • you can follow a capstone route without naming why it proves anything

Those signals often mean you have seen the surface, not learned the boundary.

Best companion pages

Use these together with the checkpoints: