agentleFS
odinfreeodinfree/storm-ecdsa-harness/skills/route-compare-probe-discipline/SKILL.md

route-compare-probe-discipline

Skill4 starsChanged 21 days agoMITView on GitHub

Compare baseline and candidate on identical input vectors before blaming one call for ecdsa.fail residual or eval dirt. Use when a structural edit changes the op stream, because Fiat-Shamir sampling then tests the two circuits on different shots and can create or hide failures.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

6 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈5

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Use this skill before claiming a specific call, row, carry, codec window, or fold override is semantically dirty.

    line 16
  2. Very specific:

    Never claim BEAT, a clean route, or a submit-ready package from route-compare alone.

    line 22
  3. Distinctive:

    If the baseline is dirty under fixed vectors, report the compare as relative evidence only: it can falsify a blamed call but cannot prove …

    line 25
  4. Distinctive:

    Use when any of these are true:

    line 31
  5. Distinctive:

    Create or reuse a diagnostic binary that:

    line 41
  6. Distinctive:

    If residual was dirty, suspect op-hash sample drift, baseline dirt, or later composition.

    line 76

≈ “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

Route compare probe discipline

Job

Prevent false localization when a circuit edit changes ops.bin. residual_probe and trusted eval_circuit derive test vectors from the op stream. If the edited route changes op count, op order, nonce tail, or targets, then the baseline and candidate are usually tested on different Fiat-Shamir samples. A dirty candidate screen can be an actual bug, a sample-shift exposure of pre-existing dirt, or both.

Use this skill before claiming a specific call, row, carry, codec window, or fold override is semantically dirty.

Hard rules

  • Same-vector compare is a localization tool, not a submission gate.
  • Never claim BEAT, a clean route, or a submit-ready package from route-compare alone.
  • Promotion still requires fresh build, full 9024 trusted/residual zero classical/phase/ancilla garbage, then official benchmark score below frontier.
  • If the baseline is dirty under fixed vectors, report the compare as relative evidence only: it can falsify a blamed call but cannot prove the candidate clean.
  • Rebuild ops.bin before every residual/eval screen; do not trust stale streams.

When to use

Use when any of these are true:

  • A per-call env gate appears clean for some calls and dirty for adjacent calls.
  • residual_probe changed after adding/removing only a few ops.
  • A local toy proof passes but full-circuit residual gets mixed classical/phase dirt.
  • The candidate changes op hash, op count, or tail nonce placement.
  • You need to decide whether to localize inside the edit or first clean the baseline.

Probe pattern

Create or reuse a diagnostic binary that:

  1. Builds baseline ops and candidate ops in the same source tree.
  2. Clears only the candidate env knobs for the baseline build.
  3. Sets exactly the candidate env knobs for the candidate build.
  4. Derives one deterministic input vector set independent of candidate hash, or deliberately uses baseline_fs / candidate_fs modes and labels the result.
  5. Runs both routes on the same point-add inputs.
  6. Reports:
    • baseline classical/phase/ancilla failures,
    • candidate classical/phase/ancilla failures,
    • output diff count between baseline and candidate,
    • phase diff batches,
    • first useful divergence mask.

Recommended command shape:

ROUTE_COMPARE_SHOTS=512 \
ROUTE_COMPARE_CANDIDATE_ENV='TLM_FFG_CY0_PARK_CALLS=182' \
cargo run --release --bin route_compare_probe

For values containing commas, separate env edits with semicolons:

ROUTE_COMPARE_CANDIDATE_ENV='TLM_FFG_CY0_PARK_CALLS=178,180,181;TLM_FOLD_CALL_CODE_OVERRIDES=248:5,265:5' \
ROUTE_COMPARE_SHOTS=2048 \
cargo run --release --bin route_compare_probe

Interpretation

  • output_diff=0 and candidate failures match baseline failures:
    • The edit is not locally blamed by this sample.
    • If residual was dirty, suspect op-hash sample drift, baseline dirt, or later composition.
  • Candidate has new classical failures vs a clean baseline:
    • Value bug. Localize inside the edit before widening.
  • Candidate has phase-only failures:
    • Classify phase source before nonce search. Do not submit.
  • Candidate has ancilla-only failures:
    • Lifetime/reclaim bug. Check host was truly zero at loan and restored at reclaim.
  • Baseline is dirty:
    • Move the probe to a cleaner checkout or treat the finding as falsification only.

Report line

## HH:MM route-compare localization
Candidate=<name> baseline=<tree/hash> candidate_env=<env>.
Same-vector compare=<shots> base=<c/p/a> cand=<c/p/a> output_diff=<n> phase_diff_batches=<n>.
Interpretation=<local-edit-falsified|value-bug|phase-bug|baseline-dirty>.
Gate=no winner/no submit; next=<bounded action>.

Park conditions

  • Same-vector compare is dirty and the failing route has no clean local toy proof.
  • The baseline itself is dirty and no cleaner baseline can be produced quickly.
  • The route saves peak qubits but Toffoli headroom cannot beat the refreshed frontier.
  • A 9024 trusted/residual run is not zero classical/phase/ancilla.

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.