Build testable changes with Ruthless in your IDE

Start with a branch and an observable change

Suppose a search form sends an empty query and produces a confusing results page. Define the desired behaviour first: submitting whitespace should show the existing inline validation message, send no request and leave a valid search working. This is a small change with observable effects rather than an open-ended instruction to improve search.

Inspect your working tree before creating a branch. Preserve existing uncommitted work and record which files belong to your change. Run the current relevant check to learn whether it already fails. If there is no useful automated check, identify a repeatable manual journey and its expected network behaviour before editing.

Connect the client and provide the right context

Configure your compatible IDE client with the Ruthless base URL https://getruthless.io/v1, your protected API key and an available model ID. gpt-terra and ruthless-forge are examples to investigate, not a promise that either wins your task. Use Chat Completions support; compatibility does not imply support for every OpenAI endpoint. Consult current setup documentation for your client. [1][3]

Supply the form component, request helper, validation pattern and relevant tests. Explain the repository commands and any scope boundaries. Hosted chat does not automatically see your local files, terminal or localhost. IDE access depends on the client configuration and tools you have authorised. Redact credentials and production customer records before providing context.

Ask for a plan tied to exact files

Request a short diagnosis, the smallest proposed edit and the check that would catch the original bug. The answer should connect the empty-query behaviour to a concrete condition in the supplied code. If the model invents a helper or assumes a testing framework, supply the missing fact before accepting its plan.

For our example, a reasonable proposal checks query.trim() before the request and reuses existing validation rendering. It should not silently redesign the form, introduce a new dependency or change unrelated error behaviour. Ask which branch handles a valid query and which check proves that branch remains intact.

Implement this bounded search change in the supplied project context. First identify the cause and propose affected files and checks. Whitespace submission must show existing validation and make no request; valid search must still work. Preserve unrelated edits. After proposing a diff, distinguish tests actually run from suggested checks. Context: [component, helper, tests and commands].

Inspect the diff and exercise both branches

Apply only the intended patch through your IDE workflow. Read the final diff yourself, including removed lines and dependency files. Run the targeted tests and the checks required by the repository. For this example, assert that whitespace causes zero request-helper calls and a validation message; a normal query should call the helper with the expected value.

Then use the actual form. Submit whitespace, inspect the result and confirm no search request appears in your development network panel. Submit a valid term and verify its results. A model saying tests pass is not a test result. Keep the terminal output and observed browser behaviour attached to the change, and explain any surface you could not exercise.

Finish with a concise review note: what changed, why, checks run and remaining uncertainty. If the patch fails, return the failing output and relevant diff to Ruthless rather than starting an unrelated rewrite. Commit the bounded change only after the evidence supports the intended result; deployment is a separate action governed by your project workflow.