2.6 KiB
2.6 KiB
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 explicit Abaqus opt-in validation requirements. Prioritize bugs, regressions, missing tests, and rule violations.
Review Process
- Read
/AGENTS.md,/docs/ABAQUS_SUBROUTINE_AGENT_DESIGN.md,/docs/ARCHITECTURE.md, and/docs/ADR.md. - Inspect changed files with
git status --shortandgit diff. - Check architecture, Fortran test coverage, reference artifact contracts, critical rules, and validation readiness.
- Run relevant commands when feasible:
python -m unittest discover -s scripts -p "test_*.py"python scripts/validate_fortran.pypython scripts/validate_reference_artifacts.pypython scripts/validate_workspace.py
- 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? |
| Abaqus Opt-in | Is HARNESS_ABAQUS_VALIDATION=run used only when explicitly configured? |
| 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} |
| Abaqus Opt-in | PASS/FAIL | {detail} |
| Validation | PASS/FAIL | {detail} |
When there are no findings, say that clearly, then mention commands not run or remaining risk.