Run the capstone as a milestone roadmap
A capstone roadmap is a sequence of verifiable stages, not a long list of ideas. The key result remains one core flow that can be run, checked, and shown.
If functionality does not add engineering value, remove it. A scope freeze before the demo protects the result from a last wave of unverified ideas.
| Stage | Expected result | Action when behind |
|---|---|---|
| After level 25 | Draft SPEC.md, baseline, CLAUDE.md, backlog, and first EVIDENCE.md entries | Review the framing and narrow the scope |
| After levels 26–27 | A defined core flow and initial happy-path checks | Remove secondary ideas |
| After levels 28–29 | The core flow works locally, with a README and factual records | Aim for a minimal demo product |
| After levels 30–31 | Clear value, scope freeze, and a demo scenario | Do not expand functionality |
| Before the defense | Stable checks, README, constraints, and demo | Focus on reliability; do not add new features |
Make regular entries in EVIDENCE.md
The log should show the cause-and-effect relationship: what was checked, which decision was made, and how the result was confirmed. Record prompts to Claude, your own decisions, completed checks, risks, and scope changes.
Useful facts include a smoke check of the core flow, a confirmed empty-input problem, removal of an unnecessary feature, or an explanation of why production deployment is outside the project.
## 2026-09-13 — happy path
- Decision: keep one core flow, without production deploy
- Claude helped: draft verification plan
- Checks: local run and smoke scenario
- Result: passed / failed with a short fact
- Risks: integration with real data deferredEvaluation criteria
- a reproducible working scenario;
- control of the project boundaries;
- consistency between SPEC.md and the actual implementation;
- understandable Git changes and commits;
- relevant checks;
- a quality README and clear demonstration;
- transparent use of Claude Code;
- awareness of risks and an honest list of limitations.
Demo and defense structure
- Explain the user problem.
- Show one main scenario from start to finish.
- Describe Claude Code's contribution and how it was checked.
- Show the README, SPEC.md, and evidence needed for reproduction.
- Name the deliberately unimplemented parts and trade-offs.
- Demonstrate a stable local run without unnecessary new capabilities.
Final checklist before the demo
- the core flow runs locally;
- the README makes the run reproducible;
- smoke checks were completed and recorded;
- EVIDENCE.md contains the decision history;
- known limitations are documented;
- the presentation scenario is clear to an outside person;
- no new features are being added.
Canonical lesson source · JavaRush
Open JavaRush material