Repository navigation
Say when code belongs in a protocol - #48
Conversation
Prose defines the operation; named library calls with their arguments written out, and short formulae, pin the implementation. Add the test that the prose must stand with every code block deleted. Drafted with Claude Code.
![claude[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1236702?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If your organization's extra usage balance is empty, an organization admin can add extra usage credits at claude.ai/admin-settings/usage. If its monthly spend limit was reached, an admin can raise it on the same page. If neither applies, contact Anthropic support.
Once extra usage is available, someone with write access to this repository can comment @claude review on this pull request to trigger a review.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🟢 Approval recommended
The focused documentation changes clarify authoring guidance without introducing blocking issues.
No open issues 🎉
What changed in this PR
Clarifies when code belongs in protocols while keeping prose sufficient to describe the full procedure.
Changes:
- Allows explicit library calls, formulas, and short pseudocode.
- Defines code to omit and reinforces prose completeness in the author checklist.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| AUTHORING.md | Adds code-use guidance, examples, and a checklist clarification. |
Review effort: Balanced
AUTHORING.md said prose, not code, and left it there. Reviewing #46 and #47 showed the gap: "Ward linkage" does not say which of the two Ward variants in hclust() is meant, and naming the CBEA function for each inference step was clearer than describing it. This adds a short section saying code is welcome as a named call with its arguments written out, or as a formula, and that the prose must still be complete with every code block deleted.
Drafted with Claude Code.