The project standard
What running a project shares, as far as the evidence goes: write the scope before the work, name the baseline that ends the review, and leave a trail someone else can resume from. It extends reader-ergonomics, the standard for any reader, and builds on the topic, the unit every step is written in: read the standard first, then the topic. This page adds only what a project changes. No step is measured to cut rework, so most grades are conventions.
How to use it
- Pick the shape: the project shape, and name it in the project's root with a
**Shape:**line that links it; the check finds the project by that line. - Write to the principles below, and to those of reader-ergonomics, which still hold.
- Check: copy
checks/local/into your repository and run the standard's checks.project-shapefinds each project root by its Shape line and reads its six parts.
Grades mean what they mean in reader-ergonomics: measured, supported with caveat, convention, not supported. Each principle states its grade and never claims more.
Principles
Method: from a problem to its result
| Principle | Claim | Grade |
|---|---|---|
| A project is six topics | a project is a folder of six parts, problem, scope, review, baseline, plan and trail, each written as a topic. | convention, untested; an outline raised judged writing quality in an experiment (Kellogg 1988, secondary), and a plan written as a topic is not tested |
| Leave a trail | a job leaves what was asked, what was found, what was produced and where it lives, so that a second person can resume it. | convention, untested. The guides agree with each other; no study tests that a set of files lets a second person resume |
| Name the baseline | a review is finished when it names the baseline the result will be compared with, and says how. | convention, untested for the effect; the neglect of prior evidence is measured, descriptive |
| Specify before building | a project writes its scope, what is in and what is out and why, before the work starts. | supported with caveat for hasty specification as a major source of avoidable rework (an expert report, and one review limited to global software development); convention, untested for a written scope as the remedy |
Where the evidence is
Every principle links its review in evidence/, and every work cited is listed once in the bibliography.