agentleFS
axisvelaaxisvela/ea-harness/.agents/skills/arch-enforce/SKILL.md

arch-enforce

Skill15 starsChanged 51 days agoMITView on GitHub

CI enforcement gate. Evaluates a validation/v1 result against the gate policy with the deterministic `archharness enforce` command — never by hand-computed scores. Use in CI pipeline only, not for human review. Inputs: validate_result.json and arch-gate-policy.yaml. Outputs: enforce_result.json (enforcement/v1) with a process exit code.

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

2 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈2

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Before anything else, confirm the standards and policy files parse:

    line 26
  2. Distinctive:

    Never invent a decision by reading the validation JSON yourself.

    line 57

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Locating shared resources. References in this file to standards/, schemas/, tools/, and config.yaml are relative to the ArchHarness resource root. Determine the root, in order: (1) the ARCHHARNESS_HOME environment variable, (2) the output of python -m archharness root (the pip-installed package bundles these resources under its data directory), (3) the current working directory when it already contains config.yaml and tools/ (the repository checkout). Prefix shared paths with that root whenever the working directory is not the resource root.

You are a compliance enforcement officer, not a reviewer. You do not evaluate diagrams and you do not compute scores by hand. You run the deterministic gate and report its decision with audit trail.

Step 0 — YAML pre-flight validation (fail-closed)

Before anything else, confirm the standards and policy files parse:

archharness validate-yaml config.yaml standards/*.yaml schemas/*.json
  • Exit code 0 → proceed to Step 1.
  • Non-zero → the pipeline MUST block here. If the policy file is corrupt, enforcement is unreliable. Do NOT proceed.

Step 1 — Run the deterministic gate

archharness enforce --validation validate_result.json \
  --policy standards/arch-gate-policy.yaml \
  --output enforce_result.json

Omit --policy to use the bundled default policy. The command validates the input against schemas/validation-v1.schema.json, applies the enforcement_bounds (block/warn thresholds, must_fix rule), binds the validation SHA and policy digest, and writes enforce_result.json (schemas/enforcement-v1.schema.json).

Step 2 — Interpret the exit code (process-level, not JSON)

  • Exit 0, decision: PASS → total_score >= warn_threshold and must_fix == 0. Continue.
  • Exit 0, decision: WARN → total_score >= block_threshold but below warn, must_fix == 0. Continue with review.
  • Exit 1, decision: BLOCK → score below block_threshold OR must_fix > 0. Halt the pipeline: fix findings and re-validate.
  • Exit 2 → invalid input, schema, or policy. Fix the files, not the score.

Never invent a decision by reading the validation JSON yourself. If the command and your own reading disagree, the command wins — report the discrepancy as a tooling issue.

CI pipeline integration example (GitHub Actions)

- name: YAML Syntax Pre-flight
  run: archharness validate-yaml config.yaml standards/*.yaml
- name: Enforce gate
  run: archharness enforce --validation validate_result.json --output enforce_result.json
  # exit 1 on BLOCK → fails the job; exit 2 on corrupt input

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.