Learning Contract¶
Page Maps¶
graph LR
family["Reproducible Research"]
program["Deep Dive Snakemake"]
section["Guides"]
page["Learning Contract"]
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 need to reset how to study the program. Deep Dive Snakemake is not built for passive reading. It is built for readers who can explain one workflow boundary, name the failure it prevents, and point to the command or artifact that proves the claim.
What the program is asking from you¶
For each module, you should be able to do four things before you call it done:
- explain the workflow or publish boundary in plain language
- name the failure that would appear if that boundary were false
- choose one command, artifact, or file that tests the claim
- say why a heavier proof route would be unnecessary right now
If you can only recognize the vocabulary, the module is not done yet.
What the program owes you¶
The material should present each important idea in an order that a human can actually use:
- the contract question
- the failure mode that makes the question matter
- the repair or design rule
- the proof route that can confirm the claim
- the capstone route only after the local idea is clear
When a page jumps from slogan to command list, the page is making you reconstruct the lesson design alone.
How to work a module honestly¶
Use this loop:
- Read the module overview and the lesson that matches the current question.
- Write down one sentence that starts with "The contract here is..."
- Run the smallest proof route that could falsify your understanding.
- If the evidence surface feels bigger than the claim, step back to the module or guide.
- Move on only when you can explain the idea without borrowing the page's wording.
The goal is not speed. The goal is leaving each module with something you can defend in review.
The proof surfaces you should keep reaching for¶
These surfaces recur because they answer different classes of question:
| Surface | Use it to answer |
|---|---|
| dry-run output | what Snakemake intends to do before execution |
--summary |
what outputs exist and how Snakemake currently sees them |
--list-changes |
why code, params, or inputs now justify reruns |
FILE_API.md |
what downstream users are allowed to trust |
| publish bundle contents | what the repository promotes as a versioned contract |
| verification and test targets | whether the repository can defend its claims after execution |
Good study means choosing the surface that matches the claim instead of jumping straight to the biggest route.
When the capstone is appropriate¶
Open the capstone when the local idea is already stable and you want to see it survive a real repository shape.
Do not open the capstone yet when:
- you still need a first explanation of the concept
- you cannot name the failure the module is trying to prevent
- you do not know which command would count as proof
- the repository still feels larger than the lesson itself
Use Capstone Map when the concept is clear but the right repository route is not.
Signs you are fooling yourself¶
Stop and reset if any of these are true:
- you keep widening the reading surface because one page did not click
- you can quote the term but cannot give a failure example
- you chose
prooforcapstone-confirmbecause it felt safer than thinking - you can follow the capstone mechanically but cannot say which boundary owns the behavior
Those are not minor study gaps. They usually mean the previous page needs a slower, smaller pass.