agentleFS
mediajunkiemediajunkie/piper-morgan-product/.cursor/rules/verification-first.mdc

piper-morgan-product / rules

Cursor rule8 starsChanged 7 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Verification-first methodology with Inchworm Protocol

The file

We split this verification-first.mdc into the rules it gives an agent

3 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈3

    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:

    Verify: - Check North Star test

    line 43
  2. Distinctive:

    No GitHub issue → STOP

    line 64
  3. Distinctive:

    Test results shown in full

    line 80

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 6,668 Cursor rule 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
verification-first.mdc
---
description: Verification-first methodology with Inchworm Protocol
globs:
  - "**/*.py"
  - "**/*.md"
alwaysApply: true
---

# Verification-First Development (Inchworm Protocol)

## MANDATORY: Read Briefing Documents

Check `/Users/xian/Development/piper-morgan/docs/briefing/` for:

- **METHODOLOGY.md** - Complete methodology including Inchworm Protocol
- **CURRENT-STATE.md** - What we're working on now
- **roles/ROLE-PROGRAMMER.md** - Your specific requirements

## 🛑 INFRASTRUCTURE CHECK (MANDATORY FIRST)

```bash
# Verify infrastructure matches expectations
ls -la web/ services/ cli/
find . -name "*[feature]*" -type f

# If mismatch found:
# 1. STOP immediately
# 2. Report discrepancy with evidence
# 3. Wait for revised instructions
```

For complete documentation navigation, see: docs/NAVIGATION.md
This file maps all documentation locations and purposes

## The Inchworm Protocol

Complete work sequentially:

1. **Fix** - Solve the actual problem
2. **Test** - Prove it works
3. **Lock** - Prevent regression
4. **Document** - Update docs
5. **Verify** - Check North Star test

**NO partial implementations. Complete 100% before moving on.**

## Before ANY Implementation

```bash
# Check if it already exists
grep -r "pattern\|class\|function" services/ --include="*.py"
cat services/shared_types.py | grep "Enum"
cat services/config.py | grep "setting"

# If found: COMPLETE it, don't create new
```

## STOP Conditions

- Infrastructure doesn't match → STOP
- Pattern/code already exists → STOP (complete it)
- Configuration unclear → STOP
- Tests failing → STOP
- No GitHub issue → STOP
- Found 75% complete code → STOP (report and complete)

## Testing Discipline

```bash
# ALWAYS with PYTHONPATH
PYTHONPATH=. python -m pytest tests/ -xvs

# Show actual output, not summaries
```

## Evidence Required

- Terminal output for ALL claims
- GitHub issue updated with checkboxes
- Test results shown in full
- No "should work" - show it working

## COMMITTING CHANGES (MANDATORY WORKFLOW)

```bash
# ALWAYS run before committing to prevent double-commit issue
./scripts/fix-newlines.sh  # Fix newlines FIRST
git add .                  # Stage changes
git commit -m "message"    # Commit (will pass pre-commit hooks)

# NEVER commit without running fix-newlines.sh first
```

**Why**: Pre-commit hooks fail if files don't end with newlines. Running `fix-newlines.sh` first ensures commits pass on the first try, eliminating the double-commit pattern.

**Reference**: See CLAUDE.md "COMMITTING CHANGES" section and docs/dev-tips/tool-usage-best-practices.md for complete details.

## The 75% Pattern

Most code is 75% complete then abandoned. Your job: COMPLETE existing work, not create new patterns.

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.