pytest-grounding 0.0.4

Turn assertions about data into re-runnable, provenance-tracked claims — written and reviewed by agents.

grounding

Turn assertions about data into re-runnable, provenance-tracked claims — written and reviewed by agents.

grounding is a small runtime on top of pytest. A test stops being a pass/fail check on your code and becomes a grounded claim: a statement about data, automatically pinned to the exact bytes it depends on, re-checked whenever those bytes change, carrying a non-binary judgment (how strong, with what caveats) that lives in version control.

It's built for a workflow where an agent writes the claims and a second, fresh-context agent reviews them.

pip install grounding            # core (statement-only / quote-only)
pip install 'grounding[data]'    # + CSV grounding via data()/load()
pip install 'grounding[docs]'    # + document quote verification via doc()

No network, no API keys, no model inside. Everything is a pure function of file bytes.

Why agents, specifically

When an agent asserts "knockdown reached 53% at the high dose," you have two questions: is it mechanically true against the data, and does the evidence actually support the claim as worded? grounding splits those, and each half lands with the right reviewer:

• The mechanical half is the test. Re-run it; it passes or fails against sha-pinned bytes. No reviewer judgment needed — CI does it.
• The judgment half is metadata (statement, @strength, @caveats, the cited quote). A fresh-context reviewer agent reads exactly the bytes the author grounded — same shas, no drift — and decides whether the framing is honest.

grounding_report.json is the machine-readable handoff: the author agent emits it, the reviewer agent consumes it.

A claim is a pytest test

from grounding import data, evidence, statement, strength, caveats, kind
from scipy import stats

@kind("result")
@strength("moderate")
@caveats("n=8 per arm, single cohort; not corrected for multiple endpoints")
def test_treatment_lowers_biomarker_vs_vehicle():
    """Serum biomarker at day 28: 10 mg/kg arm vs vehicle, cohort B.

    Reviewer notes: groups are the prespecified arms; Welch's t-test because the
    vehicle arm's spread is larger; two treated animals were excluded upstream for
    dosing errors (already applied in the tidy table).
    """
    df = data("biomarker_day28.csv")
    treated = df[df.arm == "10mpk"].biomarker
    vehicle = df[df.arm == "vehicle"].biomarker

    drop = 1 - treated.mean() / vehicle.mean()
    t, p = stats.ttest_ind(treated, vehicle, equal_var=False)

    statement(f"At day 28, the 10 mg/kg arm showed a {drop:.0%} lower serum biomarker "
              f"than vehicle (Welch t = {t:.1f}, p = {p:.3f}).")
    evidence(pct_drop=round(drop * 100, 1), p_value=round(p, 4))

    assert p < 0.05 and drop > 0    # the qualitative claim: a real, downward effect

The three layers don't repeat each other:

• statement() is the proposition, with numbers interpolated from the data — it can't claim a drop the table doesn't produce.
• the docstring is the why and how — context that lets a later reviewer judge the claim without re-deriving it.
• the assert guards only the qualitative shape (significant, downward); the quantity lives in the computed statement.

Run it:

pytest --grounding-out ./out

→ out/grounding_report.json:

{
  "claims": [{
    "id": "test_efficacy.py::test_treatment_lowers_biomarker_vs_vehicle",
    "statement": "At day 28, the 10 mg/kg arm showed a 41% lower serum biomarker than vehicle (Welch t = 3.2, p = 0.006).",
    "kind": "result",
    "strength": "moderate",
    "caveats": "n=8 per arm, single cohort; not corrected for multiple endpoints",
    "inputs": [{"kind": "data", "path": "biomarker_day28.csv", "sha256": "a17b…", "via": "tracked"}],
    "evidence": {"pct_drop": 41.2, "p_value": 0.0061}
  }]
}

Nobody hand-wrote that provenance. data() recorded the read; the capture context attached it to the claim.

Grounding a quote in a document

from grounding import doc, statement

def test_summary_states_endpoint_met():
    """Quote is from the signed CSR §10.1, not the synopsis."""
    csr = doc("clinical_summary.pdf")          # sha-pinned like any input
    statement("The clinical study report states the primary endpoint was met.")
    assert csr.contains("the primary endpoint was met")

DocRef.contains() extracts with pinned pure-Python readers (pdf/docx/pptx) and matches whitespace/dash/Markdown-robustly, so a quote split across lines or cells still matches. The match is a pure function of the bytes. There is no OCR: a scanned/image-only document raises EmptyExtraction rather than silently reporting "not found".

Composing claims

uses() lets one claim build on earlier ones: it merges their sha-pinned inputs into this claim's provenance (transitively) and hands back their evidence. The composed claim can read no source of its own, yet grounding trace still walks it all the way down — change an upstream dataset and the roll-up breaks too. Provenance is a computed DAG, never hand-maintained.

Roll up independent results. A program-level conclusion that rests on several per-dataset claims — defined in different test files, over different data:

from grounding import uses, statement, strength

@strength("moderate")
def test_effect_replicates_across_cohorts():
    """The biomarker drop holds in two independently-run cohorts."""
    b = uses("test_treatment_lowers_biomarker_vs_vehicle")   # cohort B
    c = uses("test_treatment_lowers_biomarker_cohort_c")     # cohort C, a different test file
    statement(f"the effect replicates: {b['pct_drop']:.0f}% (cohort B) "
              f"and {c['pct_drop']:.0f}% (cohort C)")
    assert b["pct_drop"] > 0 and c["pct_drop"] > 0

This claim touches no CSV directly, but its recorded inputs now include both cohorts' files, each sha-pinned. Change either cohort's data and this roll-up — not just the two underlying claims — shows up as drifted.

Cross-check data against a document. Compose a numeric claim with a quote check to assert an external report and your own data agree — the classic transcription-drift catcher:

from grounding import doc, uses, statement, strength, kind

@kind("external")
@strength("strong")
def test_report_headline_matches_our_data():
    """The CSR's stated drop matches what our tidy data produces — no transcription drift."""
    ours = uses("test_treatment_lowers_biomarker_vs_vehicle")["pct_drop"]
    csr = doc("clinical_summary.pdf")
    statement(f"the CSR's reported reduction matches our computed {ours:.0f}% drop")
    assert csr.contains(f"{ours:.0f}% reduction")

This grounds the agreement itself: the PDF is pinned by doc(), the number is pinned transitively through uses(), and the single assert fails if the report and the data ever diverge. Each claim stays small and independently reviewable; higher-level claims inherit — never re-derive — their evidence and provenance.

Tracing

grounding trace ./out          # re-verify every claim's inputs still match recorded shas

One command answers "is this conclusion still grounded?" — the question a reviewer otherwise spends an afternoon on. Exit 0 if grounded, 1 if any input changed or went missing.

What's in the box

Piece	What it does
Capture context	records every tracked read (kind, path, sha256) while a claim runs
Tracked loaders	data()/load() (CSV→DataFrame, sha-pinned), doc() (any document)
statement()	the claim's proposition — ideally computed from the data so it can't drift
Quote verification	DocRef.contains() — offline, deterministic; raises on unreadable sources
pytest plugin	wraps every test in a capture, emits grounding_report.json
Judgment markers	@strength, @caveats, @kind, @reviewed — the reviewer's surface
uses()	transitive claim composition
Bypass guard	flags a claim that reads data through an untracked path
grounding trace	walks the provenance DAG; tells you if a conclusion is still grounded

Design principles

• Deterministic & offline. Pure function of bytes. No network, keys, or model — runs in CI and in massively parallel agent fan-out with nothing to configure.
• Sha-pinned. The recorded hash is of exactly the bytes parsed.
• The test is the spec. A claim is an ordinary pytest test; your runner, fixtures, and CI just work. Git history of statement/@strength/@caveats is a belief-change ledger.
• Computed, not curated. Provenance, composition, and (ideally) the statement itself derive from what ran, so they can't drift from reality.
• Author/critic separation by construction. Mechanical truth → the assert; honest framing → metadata a fresh-context reviewer judges against the same pinned evidence.

What it is not

• Not data versioning (DVC/lakeFS) — it pins shas of files you already have, wherever they live.
• Not a workflow engine — it observes reads during a test; it doesn't orchestrate them.
• Not rendering — turning grounded claims into a cited report (PDF/HTML) is a separate layer built on top of grounding_report.json.
• Not storage/indexing — the report is the wire format; building a searchable index over it is a consumer's concern.
• Not an LLM judge — it runs no model; judgments are recorded by the agents that use it.