AbaqusSubroutineDev/.codex/skills/harness-review/SKILL.md

name, description

name	description
harness-review	Use when reviewing this Abaqus User Subroutine Harness repository: local changes, generated phase files, implementation diffs, missing tests, Fortran validation readiness, reference artifact contracts, or compliance with AGENTS.md, docs/ARCHITECTURE.md, docs/ADR.md, and Harness acceptance criteria.

Harness Review

Overview

Use this skill to review Harness work against repository rules, Abaqus User Subroutine workflow, Fortran TDD, no-Abaqus validation, reference artifact contracts, and externally generated extracted CSV validation requirements. Prioritize bugs, regressions, missing tests, and rule violations.

Review Process

1. Read /AGENTS.md, /docs/ABAQUS_SUBROUTINE_AGENT_DESIGN.md, /docs/ARCHITECTURE.md, and /docs/ADR.md.
2. Inspect changed files with git status --short and git diff.
3. Check architecture, Fortran test coverage, reference artifact contracts, critical rules, and validation readiness.
4. Run relevant commands when feasible:
   • python -m unittest discover -s scripts -p "test_*.py"
   • python scripts/validate_fortran.py
   • python scripts/validate_reference_artifacts.py
   • python scripts/validate_workspace.py
5. Lead with actionable findings. Keep summaries secondary.

Checklist

Item	Question
Workflow	Does the change fit the seven-step Abaqus User Subroutine process?
Architecture	Does the change follow docs/ARCHITECTURE.md ownership boundaries?
Tests	Are new or changed Fortran behaviors covered by no-Abaqus Fortran/Python tests or harness tests?
TDD Guard	Would Fortran production edits be blocked without related tests?
References	Do reference artifacts include .inp, source hash, Abaqus version, compiler version, msg/dat/log tail, and extracted CSV contracts when required?
External Results	Are solver-result checks based on externally generated ODB-extracted CSV artifacts rather than local solver runs?
Build	Do the Python, Fortran, reference artifact, and workspace validation commands pass or report expected skips?

Output Format

If there are findings, list them first in severity order with file and line references when possible. Then include this table:

Item	Result	Notes
Workflow	PASS/FAIL	{detail}
Architecture	PASS/FAIL	{detail}
Tests	PASS/FAIL	{detail}
TDD Guard	PASS/FAIL	{detail}
Reference Artifacts	PASS/FAIL	{detail}
External Results	PASS/FAIL	{detail}
Validation	PASS/FAIL	{detail}

When there are no findings, say that clearly, then mention commands not run or remaining risk.