# Verification — the enforcement rules

Nomarchy's promise to its user: a rock-stable, fully functional, beautiful
workstation that is reproducible, easy to recover, and never requires the
user to become a Nix expert. Every rule below exists to protect that
promise. A change that works but degrades stability, aesthetics, or
user-simplicity is a regression, not a feature.

This document is an **enforcer**, not the workflow itself: the ladder and
iteration protocol live in `agent/LOOP.md`, VM instructions and gotchas in
`docs/TESTING.md`. It applies to **every** change to this repo — features,
fixes, theming, module changes, lock bumps, docs, backlog grooming.
"Small" or "obvious" changes are exactly where verification gets skipped,
so they trigger it too. If this file and those docs ever disagree, fix the
discrepancy in the same or a follow-up commit so they can't disagree
twice.

## 1. Preflight (once per session)

Before starting work, establish what verification tier this environment
can reach, so you never promise verification you can't deliver:

1. Linux x86_64 host? `/dev/kvm` present and readable?
2. Enough free disk for an image/ISO build (multi-GB)?
3. Network access for a cold Nix store?

If the environment cannot reach V2 (no KVM, no disk, etc.): say so
immediately, do the V0/V1 work honestly, mark the change **"V2 pending"**
exactly as you would mark a hardware-blocked change "V3 pending" (§4),
and stop short of claiming the change is done. Never simulate, guess, or
describe what a VM test "would" show.

## 2. The verification ladder (enforcement rules)

Climb the V0–V3 ladder as defined in `agent/LOOP.md`. Four non-negotiable
enforcement rules on top:

1. **V2 is mandatory for anything user-visible.** If a user of the
   installed system could perceive the change — behavior, layout, colors,
   keybinds, timing, error messages — it must be exercised in the local
   VM before commit. Docs-only, comment-only, or agent-notes changes may
   stop at the tier LOOP.md assigns them; user-visible changes may not.
2. **Every "done" report names the tier reached and shows the evidence.**
   Evidence means: the command run and its relevant output, the checklist
   items exercised, and for visual work the screenshots viewed (§3). "It
   builds" is a V1 claim, not a V2 claim. Never let a report imply a
   higher tier than was actually reached.
3. **A failed or flaky test is a result, not an obstacle.** Distinguish
   real failures from environment flakes using the known-gotchas section
   of `docs/TESTING.md` (e.g. no-KVM slowness, missing guest GL). If you
   cannot confidently classify a failure, report it as unresolved — do
   not retry until green and report only the green run.
4. **VM runs are headless and unattended.** Use the repo's headless
   harness — `tools/test-live-iso.sh` and `tools/test-install.sh` for
   boot/install runs, `tools/vm/qmp.py` for programmatic VM control and
   `tools/vm/vncshot.py` for screen capture — never a graphical VM window
   or any flow that needs a human at the console. The human is not part
   of the test loop: do not pause mid-run to ask them to look at the VM,
   click something, or confirm what is on screen. A run must complete on
   its own and leave auditable artifacts behind (logs, serial console
   output, exit codes, screenshots), with every wait bounded by a timeout
   so a hang becomes a recorded failure instead of a stalled session.
   Prefer scripted assertions (process up, file exists, service/D-Bus
   state, the checks in `tools/`) over eyeballing; where judgment is
   genuinely needed — visual quality — *you* view the captured
   screenshots (§3), not the human. The human reviews evidence in the
   final report, never the live run.

### Regression scope after a change

Re-running the full checklist for every change wastes VM time; running
nothing invites regressions. Default rule:

- Always: the session-sanity items (boot to session, bar renders).
- Plus: every checklist item touching the layer you changed.
- Plus: the theming end-to-end item whenever theming plumbing changed,
  even indirectly (palette generation, symlinks, reload hooks).
- Lock bumps and toolchain changes: run the full checklist — their blast
  radius is unknowable by construction.

## 3. Visual verification protocol

Visual quality is a core feature of Nomarchy, so "it probably looks fine"
is never verification. A visual/UI change is not V2-verified until all of
the following are true:

1. **Before/after screenshots** of the changed surface were captured
   headlessly — `tools/theme-shot.nix` for reproducible theme renders,
   `tools/vm/vncshot.py` (driven via `tools/vm/qmp.py`) for captures from
   a running VM. No VM window, no human interaction. Capture the "before"
   from the base branch or prior generation, not from memory.
2. **Scripted checks first**: run `tools/check-theme-contrast.py` and
   `tools/audit-theme-design.py` against the affected theme(s) before any
   eyeballing — machine-checkable legibility/design violations should
   never survive to the judgment stage. Use `tools/vm/gap-analysis.py`
   where it applies.
3. **Two themes**: repeat the "after" capture under at least two themes,
   one with a generated palette and one whole-swap theme (e.g.
   summer-night). These exercise different code paths in the bar/launcher
   theming; a change that looks right under one can silently break the
   other.
4. **You actually viewed the images** — open the screenshot files and
   look at them. State concretely what you inspected: alignment, spacing,
   contrast/legibility against the palette, icon rendering, no clipped or
   overlapping elements, and that the change looks intentional next to
   the "before".
5. Keep the screenshots in the run's working area and reference their
   paths in the report, so the human can audit the same evidence.

If the VM cannot render the surface faithfully (known GL/compositor gaps
in the guest — see `docs/TESTING.md`), that specific visual aspect is
hardware-blocked: verify everything the VM *can* show, and queue the rest
per §4.

## 4. Hardware-blocked checks

Some checks genuinely require real hardware (GPU behavior, multi-monitor
hotplug, audio devices, power/suspend, firmware). For those:

1. Add an entry to `agent/HARDWARE-QUEUE.md` with: what changed, **exact**
   reproduction steps a human can follow verbatim, the expected
   observation (what "pass" looks like), and the commit hash once known.
2. Mark the commit body **"V3 pending: <one-line summary>"**.
3. Say it plainly in your report. A hardware-blocked check is not a
   failure and not something to hide — hiding it is the failure.
4. When the human reports back, close the queue entry in the next commit
   and record the outcome; if it failed on hardware, that's a new bug at
   the top of the backlog.

Do not use the hardware queue as an escape hatch: if a check *can* be
done in the VM, it must be. "The VM is slow" does not qualify.

## 5. Maintenance work

Maintenance follows the same ladder:

- **Flake lock bumps**: treat as maximum-blast-radius changes. Build,
  boot the VM, run the full regression checklist, and do a visual
  spot-check of the session (themes can shift with upstream package
  changes). Never merge a lock bump on "it evaluates". Since #134 the
  lock carries **two channels** (the release pin and the
  `nixos-unstable` pin feeding `unstable.*`) — a bump moves both, and
  this checklist applies to both.
- **Theme imports / new themes**: import via `tools/import-palettes.py`,
  then the full §3 visual protocol; additionally verify the theme-switch
  round trip (into the new theme and back out).
- **Docs drift**: run `tools/check-option-docs.py` after any change that
  adds or modifies options, and fix drift in the same commit as the code
  change that created it. Doc-only fixes are V0 — but verify any command
  you document by actually running it.
- **Backlog grooming / agent-notes**: V0; keep entries consistent with
  the conventions in `agent/`.

## 6. Guarding the philosophy

Before committing, check the change against the distro's promises
(`agent/GOALS.md` is the full statement):

- **User is not a Nix expert.** If the change requires the user to write
  or read Nix to use the feature day-to-day, redesign it. Configuration
  the user touches must stay in the simple, documented surface the repo
  defines.
- **Rock-stable and recoverable.** Prefer boring, reproducible mechanisms
  over clever ones. Any change that could break boot or the session must
  have an obvious rollback story (NixOS generations count, but say so).
- **Aesthetics are load-bearing.** A functionally correct but visually
  regressive change fails review by definition — that's what §3 is for.

When a requested change conflicts with these promises, stop and raise the
conflict instead of implementing it quietly.

## 7. Reporting format

End every unit of work with a short report containing:

1. What changed (one paragraph, plain language).
2. Verification tier reached, with evidence (commands + key output,
   checklist items run, screenshot paths viewed).
3. Anything pending: "V2 pending" (environment) or "V3 pending"
   (hardware, with queue entry reference).
4. Follow-ups added to the backlog, if any.
