d4e72f280e
- Delete .mcp.json + .claude/rules/repo-mem.md; drop .repo-mem from .gitignore - Remove repo-mem / substrate_score / repo_search references from all .md - Move 15 EVOLV skills from .agents/skills/ to .claude/skills/ so they are auto-discovered by the Claude Code harness and invokable via the Skill tool - Retire .agents/skills/evolv-orchestrator (duplicate of the subagent at .claude/agents/evolv-orchestrator.md); orchestrator lives as a subagent only - Drop OpenAI-format agent yaml metadata from each skill (not needed for CC) - Update CLAUDE.md, CONTRACTS.md, AGENTS.md to point at the new locations and disambiguate skills (.claude/skills/) vs subagents (.claude/agents/) - Fix CLAUDE.md tick-loop wording (opt-in per-node, not a fixed 1000ms) - Widen .claude/rules/ paths frontmatter so node-architecture and telemetry rules trigger on more relevant files; add frontmatter to flow-layout rule - Bump CONTRACTS.md review date to 2026-05-19; add step 7 to the contract- change workflow (review example flows when topic usage changes) - Bump nodes/generalFunctions pin (Home.md substrate_score reference removed) Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
55 lines
2.0 KiB
Markdown
55 lines
2.0 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: evolv-commissioning-validation
|
|
description: Plan and verify EVOLV commissioning readiness. Use when defining FAT/SAT test plans, acceptance criteria, loop checks, simulation-to-field validation, startup sequencing evidence, and rollout gates for operational deployment.
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# EVOLV Commissioning Validation
|
|
|
|
## Mission
|
|
Convert implementation changes into deployment-ready evidence with clear acceptance gates.
|
|
|
|
## Harness Execution Contract
|
|
- Start from impacted contracts, modes, and site-operational constraints.
|
|
- Define invariants before edits:
|
|
- validation criteria are measurable and reproducible
|
|
- startup and failover behavior is proven, not assumed
|
|
- rollback path is explicit
|
|
- Produce evidence artifacts tied to concrete tests/checks.
|
|
|
|
## Scope
|
|
- Cross-node behavior spanning control, measurement, and integrations
|
|
- Test plans and validation docs under repository documentation paths
|
|
- Node-level suites where commissioning evidence is derived
|
|
|
|
## Workflow
|
|
1. Build FAT/SAT matrix from impacted contracts and risk areas.
|
|
2. Define pass/fail criteria and required instrumentation visibility.
|
|
3. Execute or script reproducible validation checks.
|
|
4. Capture evidence with timestamps, commands, and outcomes.
|
|
5. Define rollout gates and rollback triggers.
|
|
|
|
## Standards
|
|
- Prefer deterministic replayable checks over ad-hoc validation.
|
|
- Include negative-path and recovery-path tests.
|
|
- Tie each acceptance criterion to a concrete artifact.
|
|
- Keep operator handoff notes concise and actionable.
|
|
|
|
## Test Expectations
|
|
Cover:
|
|
- startup/shutdown commissioning sequences
|
|
- failover and reconnect scenarios
|
|
- alarm/interlock behavior under commissioning cases
|
|
- post-deploy smoke checks and regression shortlist
|
|
|
|
## Deliverables
|
|
Return:
|
|
- FAT/SAT-style validation matrix
|
|
- executed evidence summary
|
|
- go/no-go risks and mitigations
|
|
- rollback plan and monitoring checklist
|
|
|
|
Decision interview triggers:
|
|
- reduced commissioning scope under schedule pressure
|
|
- acceptance of unresolved high-severity risks
|
|
- rollout sequencing choices with operational impact
|