seed: curriculum content

1.solar-system/1.welcome/17.team-build/review/general.md

@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+# Team Build — Extended Notes
+
+*Not rendered in the platform yet. Reference for instructors and for
+future "learn more" surfaces.*
+
+## Purpose
+
+The capstone of `1.welcome`. By this point a cadet has used every
+tool they need: `mkdir`, `echo`, `git init`, `git config`, `git add`,
+`git commit`, and shell scripting with `chmod +x`. This battle forces
+them to combine all of it into a single artifact — a working
+automation script — and to read someone else's script for the first
+time.
+
+## Skills Demonstrated
+
+- Composing learned commands into a sequential program
+- Writing a script with a correct shebang and execute bit
+- Producing exact output from automation
+- Reading another cadet's code well enough to score it
+- Giving and receiving honest feedback under a time limit
+
+## Common Pitfalls
+
+- **One commit covering all three files** — defenders forget that the
+  spec says *each file commits separately*. Three commits, not one.
+- **File contents with extra whitespace** — `echo` adds a trailing
+  newline by default, which is fine; trailing spaces on the line are
+  not. Reviewers should `cat -A` to spot invisible characters.
+- **Missing or wrong identity** — `git commit` will succeed even
+  without `user.name` set if a fallback is configured globally;
+  reviewers should check `git -C mission config user.name` directly.
+- **Hardcoded absolute paths** — `cd /Users/...` breaks the moment
+  the script runs on someone else's machine. Use relative paths.
+- **`MISSION READY` printed inside another message** — the spec says
+  "exactly". `echo "Done. MISSION READY now."` should fail review.
+- **Forgetting `chmod +x`** — script runs fine via `bash launch.sh`
+  but fails when executed directly. Reviewers should test both.
+
+## Discussion Prompts (post-battle)
+
+Ask the pair to discuss for 5 minutes after both rounds:
+
+1. Whose script was easier to read? Why?
+2. Was anything in the spec ambiguous? How would you tighten it?
+3. What would you do differently if you wrote this from scratch
+   today?
+4. Did you find a bug your partner missed?
+
+## Alternative Approaches
+
+A cadet who's seen heredocs might write:
+
+```bash
+cat > manifest.txt <<EOF
+Mission Apollo
+EOF
+```
+
+Both `echo "..." > file` and heredoc are acceptable. The spec
+doesn't require a specific style — only that the resulting file
+content match exactly.
+
+## Why This Is the Last Block of Welcome
+
+This is the bridge between mechanical skill (typing commands) and
+real engineering (composing them, reading others' code, judging
+quality). Cadets who pass this battle have proven they can act as
+both author and reviewer — the foundational loop of every
+collaborative codebase. Python is built on this foundation.