claude
fbec36cb67
Scaffold the course repo and author the full curriculum in dependency-chain order, following the settled build decisions in handoff.md. - Scaffold: course README, vendor-neutral AGENTS.md (dogfoods Module 5), _TEMPLATE.md (the fixed 9-section module shape), root .gitignore, ship config. - Modules 1-2: reference exemplars (locked for tone/depth/lab style). - Modules 3-27: full lessons + runnable labs, each following the template, respecting the chain, vendor/model-agnostic, with "feel the pain" labs. - Module 8 hosting comparison web-researched and date-stamped (as of 2026-06-22), not written from memory; expansion-zone modules carry Verify-before-publish. - Capstone: the full loop end to end on the running tasks-app example. Lab code syntax-checked (Python/shell/YAML); every module has the 7 core template sections. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01TfzV5QvtPDz8LJS3Pu5VLT
2.6 KiB
2.6 KiB
Reviewing an AI-generated diff — working checklist
Keep this open while you read a diff the AI produced. The point is not to re-read the whole file; it's to interrogate the change against the prompt you gave. Work top to bottom.
0. Frame the review
- What did I actually ask for? Write the request in one sentence. Every changed line should trace back to it.
- Read the diff, not the prose. Ignore the AI's summary of what it did; the diff is the
only ground truth. (
git diff main..<branch>)
1. Scope — did it change only what was asked?
- Every hunk maps to the request. Anything outside it is scope creep until proven otherwise.
- No unrelated files touched (formatting churn, import reshuffles, version bumps).
- No "while I was here" refactors of code the request never mentioned.
2. Deletions — what did it take away?
- Read every
-line. Deletions are higher-risk than additions and skim right past you. - Edge-case handling still there? Bounds checks,
None/empty guards,try/except, validation, error returns — confirm none were dropped or weakened. - An error that used to be raised/logged isn't now silently swallowed (
except: pass).
3. Plausibility — does it only look right?
- Invented APIs. Every function, method, kwarg, attribute, import, env var, CLI flag, config key, and endpoint actually exists. Confidence is not evidence — verify the unfamiliar ones against real docs/source.
- Invented behavior. It isn't relying on a flag/option that doesn't do what the name
suggests (e.g. assuming
list.poptakes a default likedict.pop). - Off-by-one / boundary logic. Indexing, ranges, slicing, loop bounds, 0- vs 1-based.
- Inverted or weakened conditions.
if not xvsif x,<vs<=,andvsor, a filter quietly dropped from a comprehension.
4. Behavior change — would the happy path hide it?
- Does any existing command/function behave differently now? Trace one real call through.
- Run the failure case, not the success case. The trap usually survives the happy path. Feed it bad input, an empty list, a missing file, a duplicate.
- Return values / exit codes unchanged where callers depend on them.
5. Decide
- I can explain, in my own words, what every hunk does and why it's correct.
- If I can't, I request changes — the burden of proof is on the diff, not on me.
Rule of thumb: a diff is guilty until proven correct. "It runs" is the weakest possible evidence; "I read every
-line and ran the failure case" is the bar.