/ship

name: ship
description: Land the winning experiment from an evo run as a clean, mergeable change -- open a PR when the repo has a remote, otherwise merge into the working branch. Distills the best-scoring experiment down to the minimal diff that reproduces its behaviour, shaped for the qualities a maintainer merges on (scope discipline, test integrity, style adherence), then attaches an advisory mergeability report. Use when the user invokes /evo:ship, asks to land/merge/ship the best result, or wants to turn a finished optimization into a pull request.
evo_version: 0.8.0

Ship

Turn a finished evo run into a change a maintainer would merge.

The optimize loop leaves a tree of committed experiments. The winning worktree diff is not mergeable as-is: it carries debug prints, search-process churn, over-broad edits, and sometimes a test that was relaxed to clear a gate. Shipping is the step that re-derives the *minimal clean change* reproducing the winning behaviour, lands it the way the repo expects (PR or merge), and reports how mergeable it is.

Correctness is the floor, not the goal. The score says the behaviour works; this skill decides whether the *diff* is fit to merge.

Invocation

/evo:ship            # ship the auto-selected winner
/evo:ship exp_0042   # ship a specific experiment instead

Stage 1 -- Select the winner

Pick the experiment to ship, then confirm it with the user before touching their tree.

evo status    # current best valid score + counts
evo report    # top valid experiments table + score chart

• The default winner is the highest-scoring valid result in the graph history,

not the frontier. `evo frontier` is for choosing where to branch next; it can exclude an exhausted branch whose score is still the right thing to ship. An explicit `exp_id` argument overrides auto-selection.

• A shippable winner must be valid: `committed`, or `pruned` with

`prune_kind=exhausted`, with a commit and score, no `gate_result === false`, and no invalid-pruned ancestor. Never select `discarded`, `failed`, `active`, `evaluated`, legacy-pruned nodes with no `prune_kind`, `prune_kind=invalid`, or descendants of invalid-pruned nodes. If no valid candidate exists, stop and report why nothing is safe to ship.

• Resolve the run's root (baseline) node, then show the cumulative change:

  evo diff <root_id> <winner_id>   # target-scoped cumulative diff, baseline -> winner

For changes outside the benchmark target, diff the commits directly (`git diff <baseline_commit> <winner_commit>`); each node carries `.commit`.

• Present a one-screen summary: winner id, score baseline -> winner (delta),

the winning hypothesis, and a diffstat. Get a go before proceeding.

Stage 2 -- Distill to a mergeable change

Work on a fresh branch off the user's current HEAD, not in the experiment worktree. Re-derive the change so it stands on its own:

• **Scope restraint.** Keep only the files and lines the behaviour needs. Drop

experiment scaffolding, debug logging, commented-out attempts, and churn the search introduced and then abandoned. Smaller, local diffs merge; sprawl does not.

• **Test integrity.** If the search weakened, skipped, or deleted a test to clear

a gate, restore it. New behaviour that changes outputs needs a test that covers it. Never ship a green benchmark that rode on a loosened test -- call it out instead.

• **Mechanical cleanliness.** Match the repo's formatter and linter. No stray

whitespace, no reordered imports unless the repo does that.

• **Codebase adherence.** Match surrounding naming, error handling, and structure.

The diff should read like the file it lands in.

Then confirm the behaviour survived the distillation:

evo run <winner_id> --check    # or the project's benchmark / test command

If the distilled change no longer reproduces the winning score, do not paper over it -- report the gap (which part of the experiment diff was load-bearing) and let the user decide. Best-effort means honest about what could not be cleaned up, not silently shipping the raw worktree.

Stage 3 -- Land

Detect how the repo expects changes to arrive:

git remote -v

• **Remote present** -> open a pull request. Commit the distilled change on its

branch, push, and `gh pr create` with the mergeability report (Stage 4) as the body. Do not push or open the PR without the user's go.

• **No remote** -> merge the distilled change into the user's working branch as a

single clean commit. Do not force, do not rewrite existing history.

The landed commit message carries provenance: the winning experiment id, the score delta, and the one-line hypothesis. State what changed and why it is safe; do not narrate the search process.

Stage 4 -- Mergeability report (advisory)

Always produce the report. It never blocks the merge -- it tells the user, and a future reviewer, how mergeable the change is across the axes a maintainer judges on:

• **Technique** -- what the change actually does to move the score, named

concretely (the algorithm, data structure, or mechanism), not the search story. Distilled from the winning hypothesis: "replaced the O(n^2) dedup with a hash set", not "exp_0042 improved throughput". This is what a reviewer reads first.

• **Behavioural correctness** -- score baseline -> shipped (delta); benchmark

status after distillation.

• **Regression safety** -- full test suite result on the distilled change.
• **Scope** -- files touched, diff size, whether the change stays local.
• **Test correctness** -- explicit yes/no on whether any test was modified,

weakened, or removed, with detail; whether new behaviour is covered.

• **Mechanical cleanliness** -- formatter / linter status.
• **Codebase adherence** -- a note on style/convention fit.

Lead with a plain-language summary: what changed and why it is safe to merge. On a remote repo this is the PR body. With no remote, pri