Files
kernbench2/CLAUDE.md
T
ywkang ecc57d050d CLAUDE.md: restructure into Part 1 (general) / Part 2 (project-specific)
- Reorganize rules into reusable general behavior vs kernbench-specific
  foundations + rules
- Add Surfacing Choices, Coding Style (Simplicity First, Surgical Changes),
  Mental Model, Common Failure Modes
- Clarify Phase 1 forbidden vs permitted-for-discussion (pseudocode,
  sketches allowed; final ready-to-apply diffs are Phase 2 only)
- Tighten dead-code handling: mention + options before deletion
- Drop redundant "SPEC.md and ADRs are the final authority" from
  Enforcement Defaults (already in Authority & Scope)

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-05-18 12:08:10 -07:00

10 KiB

Claude Code Instructions (Repo)

This repository uses Claude Code with strict architectural and verification rules. SPEC.md and ADRs are the source of truth.


Part 1 — General Behavior

Reusable across repos. Describes how Claude Code interacts with the user and constructs changes, independent of this project's domain.

Design Questions

  • Design / architecture questions are ALWAYS allowed.
  • Design questions MUST NOT modify:
    • production code
    • test code
    • SPEC.md
    • ADRs
  • If a design question implies a change, default to Phase 1.

Surfacing Choices

Applies to both design discussions and Phase 1 proposals.

  • If multiple valid interpretations of the request exist, present them. Do NOT pick one silently.
  • If a simpler approach exists, say so. Push back when warranted — do NOT just implement the more complex path the user proposed.
  • State required assumptions explicitly. If uncertain, ask before assuming.

Change & Test Protocol (Mandatory)

All non-trivial changes MUST follow a two-phase process. Design discussion is always allowed. Production code changes require Phase 1 approval before Phase 2 applies them.

Phase 1 — Proposal + Verification

(No Production Code Changes)

Purpose

  • Decide what to change and how it will be validated
  • Establish verification coverage BEFORE touching production code

Phase 1 MUST include

  1. Design Proposal
  • Explain the design change.
  • Explain why the change is needed.
  • Explain consistency with SPEC.md and relevant ADRs.
  1. Verification Plan
  • SPEC requirement(s) / ADR(s) affected.
  • Tests that validate the change:
    • existing tests to run, and/or
    • new tests to add.
  • Concrete input cases used by the tests.
  • Expected observable assertions.
  • Expected changes (or no changes) in generated artifacts, if applicable.

(Project-specific expectations for what these inputs/assertions look like: see Part 2 → Verification Plan — Project Expectations.)

If the Verification Plan is missing or vague, STOP.

Allowed in Phase 1

  • Creating or modifying test code only
  • Running tests and reporting results

Forbidden in Phase 1

  • Any production code changes
  • Any SPEC.md or ADR modifications
  • Final, ready-to-apply unified diffs (Phase 2 only)

Permitted for design discussion

  • Pseudocode, interface sketches, type signatures
  • Small illustrative snippets to clarify a design point
  • "Before / after" excerpts (not full diffs)

Phase 1 Output

  • Proposal + Verification Plan
  • Tests added/modified (if any)
  • Test execution results (PASS / FAIL)
  • Clear recommendation:
    • "No Phase 2 needed" OR
    • "Await approval for Phase 2"

Phase 2 — Apply + Verify + Rollback

Trigger

Phase 2 is triggered ONLY by the exact user approval phrase:

"ok"

Phase 2 Rules

  • Keep changes minimal and scoped to the approved Phase 1 proposal.
  • Modify only production files declared in Phase 1.
  • Avoid unrelated edits, cleanup, or formatting churn.
  • Automatically apply approved changes to the working tree.

Mandatory Verification

  • Run the tests defined in the Phase 1 Verification Plan

Success Path

If ALL tests PASS:

  • Keep the applied changes
  • Ensure generated artifacts (if affected) are consistent
  • Report success concisely

Failure Path (Mandatory)

If ANY test FAILS:

  • Immediately rollback ALL Phase 2 changes
  • Do NOT keep partial changes
  • Report:
    • failing test names
    • error messages / assertions
    • brief hypothesis of the root cause
  • Return to Phase 1 state

Tests must NEVER be weakened, removed, or altered to force Phase 2 to pass.

Failing tests may indicate:

  • invalid assumptions,
  • architectural violations,
  • or incomplete modeling.

Do not assume the test is wrong without explicit evidence.

Allowed Exceptions

(Protocol Still Required)

  • comments or docstrings
  • formatting-only changes
  • type annotation changes with no runtime behavior change

In exceptions, Phase 1 MUST explicitly state: "No behavior change; tests unchanged."

Coding Style

Applies to all production code changes (Phase 2) and test code (Phase 1). The Phase 1/2 protocol decides whether and what to change; this section decides how the resulting diff should look.

Simplicity First

Minimum code that solves the problem. Nothing speculative.

  • Write the minimum code that satisfies the Phase 1 proposal.
  • No abstractions for single-use code.
  • No "flexibility"/"configurability" not declared in Phase 1.
  • No error handling for impossible scenarios.

Ask yourself: "Would a senior engineer say this is overcomplicated?" If yes, simplify.

Surgical Changes

Touch only what you must. Clean up only your own mess.

  • Touch only files declared in the Phase 1 proposal.
  • Don't "improve" adjacent code, comments, or formatting.
  • Match existing style in the file, even if you'd do it differently.
  • If your changes orphan imports/variables/functions, remove them.
  • If you notice pre-existing dead code, do NOT delete it silently. Mention it, and present options: (a) delete (with approval), (b) keep as-is, (c) refactor to make it reachable / repurposed. Let the user choose before acting.
  • Every changed line must trace to the Phase 1 proposal.

Enforcement Defaults

General fallbacks. Apply to anything not explicitly covered above.

  • If unsure whether a change is non-trivial → treat it as non-trivial.
  • If unsure whether Phase 2 is allowed → STOP and ask.

Part 2 — Project-Specific (kernbench)

Specific to this repo's domain (SIP/CUBE/PE topology, runtime API, sim_engine). Replace this entire Part when adapting the framework to another repo.

Contains foundations (Authority & Scope → Terminology → Mental Model → Common Failure Modes) followed by rules (Non-Trivial, Verification Plan, CLI, Derived Artifacts, runtime API / sim_engine Boundaries).

Authority & Scope

  • SPEC.md defines the architectural contract.
  • ADRs (docs/adr/ADR-*.md) define non-trivial architectural decisions.
  • If a change conflicts with SPEC.md or an ADR:
    • STOP.
    • Explain the conflict.
    • Propose options (keep spec, update ADR, or narrow scope).
  • Do NOT silently change architecture.
  • The repository structure reflects architectural intent; Claude Code MUST respect existing module boundaries and file locations.

Terminology

  • runtime API: Host-facing public API used by benchmarks and user code (e.g., tensor deployment, kernel launch).
  • simulation engine (sim_engine): Discrete-event engine responsible for request injection, scheduling, and completion tracking.
  • components: Device-side nodes modeling hardware behavior (IO_CPU, M_CPU, PE_CPU, routers, engines, etc.).

Mental Model

The simulator is layered along request flow:

runtime API (host-facing: tensor ops, kernel launch; topology-agnostic, no routing — ADR-0007) ↓ sim_engine (schedules events, routes requests, tracks completion via correlation IDs) ↓ components (device-side nodes: IO_CPU, M_CPU, PE_CPU, routers, engines — model HW behavior including interconnect)

Configuration & decisions (orthogonal to request flow):

  • topology — compiled at config time (ADR-0006); defines which components exist and how they connect. Authoritative graph for sim_engine.
  • policy (routing / address / placement) — consulted by sim_engine during request handling.

Invariant: all latency arises from explicit scheduled events on modeled components and links (SPEC §0.1, R8). No implicit waits, no magic delays.

Stay within layer boundaries; do not collapse or bypass for convenience.

Common Failure Modes

Anti-patterns that violate the Mental Model or Golden Invariants (SPEC §0.1). If your change does any of these, STOP and reconsider.

  • runtime topology mutation — topology is compiled at config time; do not add/remove nodes or edges during simulation (ADR-0006).
  • nondeterministic iteration order — never iterate sets, unordered dicts, or anything else with implementation-defined order on the critical path. Determinism is required (SPEC §0.1).
  • routing policy inside runtime API — runtime API is topology-agnostic; routing/fan-out belongs in policy + sim_engine (ADR-0007).
  • latency modeled outside sim_engine scheduling — every delay must come from an explicit scheduled event on a modeled component or link (SPEC §0.1, R8). No magic sleeps, no hardcoded constants smuggled in.
  • hidden cross-layer coupling — do not skip layer interfaces. e.g., runtime API must not call into components directly, bypassing sim_engine.
  • silent ADR/SPEC reinterpretation — surface conflicts; do not paper over them. See Authority & Scope above.
  • weakening tests to make Phase 2 pass — fix the code, not the test. See Part 1 → Phase 2 → Failure Path.

What Counts as "Non-Trivial"

(Protocol Required)

Any of the following:

  • routing policy or ordering changes
  • topology builder changes (nodes, links, parameters)
  • address decoding / PhysAddr behavior
  • latency composition rules
  • changes affecting determinism or connectivity
  • changes touching two or more production files

Verification Plan — Project Expectations

Concrete forms that Part 1's Verification Plan MUST take in this repo:

  • SPEC requirement(s) / ADR(s) affected (e.g., R1/R2/R5, ADR-0002).
  • Concrete input cases:
    • topology (SIP / CUBE / PE layout)
    • request parameters (src, dst, size_bytes).
  • Expected observable assertions, such as:
    • hop trace contains key waypoints,
    • latency invariants (e.g., > 0, monotonic increase),
    • deterministic route selection.
    • expected changes (or no changes) in generated diagrams, if applicable.

CLI Semantics

  • kernbench run --device <id> runs the benchmark on a single device.
  • Omitting --device runs the benchmark on all devices discovered in the topology (logically parallel).
  • Device enumeration is handled by the CLI only; benchmarks MUST remain single-device.

Derived Artifacts (Clarification)

  • Generated diagrams under docs/diagrams/ are derived artifacts, not production code.
  • Creating or updating files in docs/diagrams/:
    • does NOT count as a production code change,
    • does NOT require Phase 2 approval,
    • MUST be consistent with SPEC.md and ADRs.

runtime API / sim_engine Boundaries

  • runtime API MUST NOT hardcode topology/routing or internal hop sequences.
  • sim_engine MUST remain independent of runtime API semantics (no tensor/kernel policy logic).