Profile Audit Guide¶

Guide Maps¶

graph LR
  family["Reproducible Research"]
  program["Deep Dive Snakemake"]
  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: executor choice, resources, or operating context. The point is not whether the profiles differ. The point is whether they differ only in policy, not in workflow meaning.

Use profile-summary after profile-audit when you want the compact comparison JSON.

Primary review route¶

Run make profile-audit.
Read route.txt and review-questions.txt.
Compare profiles/local/config.yaml, profiles/ci/config.yaml, and profiles/slurm/config.yaml.
Compare local-dryrun.txt, ci-dryrun.txt, and slurm-dryrun.txt.
Run make profile-summary only if you want the compact comparison surface.

What the audit should prove¶

executor and resource policy are visible as configuration
the workflow plan stays semantically stable across operating contexts
profile differences do not become hidden analytical changes

Review questions¶

Which differences are expected because of execution context?
Which difference would worry you because it smells like semantic drift?
Which profile should a maintainer inspect first before approving a move to new infrastructure?