Document profile inspection API
This commit is contained in:
@@ -185,51 +185,23 @@ and move failures ahead of weather collection.
|
||||
|
||||
## Priority 3: Prompt-Independent Profile Inspection
|
||||
|
||||
**Disposition:** Covered by the accepted
|
||||
[prompt-independent profile inspection](profile-inspection.md) roadmap.
|
||||
**Disposition:** Implemented as
|
||||
[`Engine.InspectProfile`](../../engine.go). See the
|
||||
[consumer guidance](../consumers/pkg-promptkit.md#inspect-a-profile-before-prompt-work).
|
||||
|
||||
### Downstream need
|
||||
|
||||
Weatherreporter will allow operators to select an external PromptKit profile
|
||||
source and may allow an explicit profile override. It should reject a missing
|
||||
profile, unknown backend, malformed execution target, or unsatisfied credential
|
||||
requirement before collecting weather data or writing report artifacts.
|
||||
|
||||
### Current integration option
|
||||
|
||||
Weatherreporter can validate an explicit profile by preparing one embedded
|
||||
prompt with fixture input. Prompts that use their own default profiles can be
|
||||
validated during their normal preparation stage.
|
||||
|
||||
This couples configuration validation to one prompt and requires placeholder
|
||||
input even when only profile and backend resolution are relevant.
|
||||
|
||||
### Requested capability
|
||||
|
||||
The prompt-independent `ResolveProfile` API proposed by the
|
||||
[Notarius wishlist](notarius-promptkit-wishlist.md#priority-2-prompt-independent-profile-inspection)
|
||||
would satisfy this need. It should resolve built-in, file-backed, and
|
||||
programmatic profiles, validate backend membership, report credential
|
||||
requirements without resolving credential values, and preserve typed error
|
||||
classification.
|
||||
|
||||
### Additional Weatherreporter considerations
|
||||
|
||||
- An explicit application profile override should be inspectable without
|
||||
selecting a report prompt.
|
||||
- A prompt-definition inspection result may expose its default profile ID so
|
||||
Weatherreporter can inspect that profile separately.
|
||||
- Inspection should distinguish structural profile validity from current
|
||||
credential availability so configuration validation can apply explicit
|
||||
application policy.
|
||||
- An optional execution-target override should be considered only if it
|
||||
describes the same target that a later run will use.
|
||||
source and may allow an explicit profile override. It needs to reject a missing
|
||||
profile, unknown backend, or malformed execution target before collecting
|
||||
weather data or writing report artifacts, and to apply its own policy to a
|
||||
reported credential requirement.
|
||||
|
||||
### Value to Weatherreporter
|
||||
|
||||
This would improve fail-fast configuration validation and give operator-facing
|
||||
errors direct profile and backend context. It is valuable but not required for
|
||||
the initial migration.
|
||||
The implemented interface improves fail-fast configuration validation and gives
|
||||
operator-facing errors direct profile and backend context. It remains optional
|
||||
for the initial migration.
|
||||
|
||||
## Priority 4: Eager Source Validation
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -368,8 +340,8 @@ It should not block adoption.
|
||||
|
||||
### Semantic Execution-Target Fingerprints
|
||||
|
||||
**Disposition:** Deferred until prompt-independent profile inspection defines
|
||||
the resolved target whose configuration identity would be fingerprinted.
|
||||
**Disposition:** Deferred pending a separate semantic-equality design for
|
||||
resolved execution targets.
|
||||
|
||||
The semantic target digest proposed by the
|
||||
[Notarius wishlist](notarius-promptkit-wishlist.md#priority-3-semantic-execution-target-fingerprints)
|
||||
@@ -432,11 +404,10 @@ Weatherreporter would be:
|
||||
1. Add executable preparation handles, ideally sharing implementation with an
|
||||
atomic detailed-run API.
|
||||
2. Add prompt-definition inspection.
|
||||
3. Add prompt-independent profile inspection.
|
||||
4. Consider eager source validation after evaluating whether the two exact
|
||||
3. Consider eager source validation after evaluating whether the two exact
|
||||
inspection APIs are sufficient.
|
||||
5. Add structured generation errors.
|
||||
6. Add structured capacity errors and semantic execution-target fingerprints
|
||||
4. Add structured generation errors.
|
||||
5. Add structured capacity errors and semantic execution-target fingerprints
|
||||
as lower-priority operational improvements.
|
||||
|
||||
The first item removes the only material integration workaround. Prompt and
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user