advanced practice · coding
Separate maker claims from checker evidence
Implement checkerVerdict(contract, makerReport, observations). contract contains requiredChecks and maxChangedFiles. observations contains independently observed checks and changedFiles. Return {accepted, missing, reasons}. Acceptance must depend only on the contract and observations, never on makerReport.claimedPassed. A required check passes only when observations records it as 'passed'.
The mechanism
The maker proposes a change; the checker reconstructs the contract and gathers fresh evidence. Independence means the checker does not merely repeat the maker's reasoning or accept its claimed test result. Release requires both an artifact and externally reproducible evidence against explicit criteria.
Expected evidence
An independent acceptance verdict that cannot be fooled by a producer's unsupported claim.
Try this drill in the practice workspace →
Hints when you need them
- Use the maker report for context only; derive the verdict from fresh observations.
- Report every missing check and the change-budget violation so remediation is actionable.
Watch for these mistakes
- Asking the same context to review its own work without fresh evidence
- Using lint success as proof of user-facing or semantic correctness
- Letting a checker rewrite the work before clearly reporting the failed acceptance criterion