Trapstreet Solution Scaffold

trapstreet-solution-scaffold

Scaffolds a trap-cli solution directory for a task on trapstreet.run, and helps diagnose the real submission failures this ecosystem produces. Built from repeated real incidents, not theory -- every gotcha below actually happened.

tp missing, or tp auth status shows no valid pairing? Hand off to trapstreet-setup first -- everything below assumes tp already runs.

Ground rules

• Never read the task's expected/, judge.py, or grader.py to construct or embellish an

answer -- only the IO-contract part of traptask.yaml (inputs/outputs shape) is fair game, and only as much of it as writing the adapter/solution.py actually requires.

• tp run/tp submit pause on two confirmation gates -- remote-source (about to execute code

pulled from a repo) and unanchored (no git provenance, won't rank). Both are the user's call, never yours: explain the consequence in plain words, recommend an answer, let them decide (see "Gates and consent" below). Never pass --trust-remote/--allow-unanchored on your own initiative.

• Never submit to the public leaderboard without the user's explicit go-ahead on that specific

submission -- a prior yes does not carry forward to the next run.

Before writing anything: interview

1. Which task, and where does it live? A local path (most common when

the task repo is checked out nearby), a git+URL, or a trapstreet.run task page (https://trapstreet.run/tasks/). For the trapstreet.run case, resolve it via the public API rather than fetching the page itself -- faster, more reliable, and doesn't depend on page layout or content-blob parsing: ``bash curl -s https://trapstreet.run/api/tasks/ | python3 -m json.tool # -> task.latest.{repo_url, commit_sha, repo_path} ` Assemble git+@#subdirectory= yourself from those three fields -- don't scrape the task's web page for this, and don't ask the user to copy a git URL off it by hand. If local, you'll need the exact relative path from wherever each trap.yaml` ends up -- get this right per-file (see Layout below), since a wrong relative depth is a common mistake.

1. Which of the three starting points is this? (see below) -- from

scratch, wrapping an existing solution.py, or adapting an existing external project. This determines whether the scaffold script writes a template solution.py for you or leaves that part to you.

1. One model, or several to compare? This determines the layout (see

below). If several: which providers/models exactly?

1. API keys, then model IDs. Before verifying anything, confirm the user actually has an API

key for each provider in play -- ask directly if unsure; don't assume .env has real values just because .env.example exists. A missing key isn't obvious until solution.py crashes on a bare KeyError at runtime, so catch it here instead of there. If it's missing, point to where to get one and pause until the user has it:

• Anthropic: https://console.anthropic.com/settings/keys
• OpenRouter: https://openrouter.ai/keys
• Any other provider: its own dashboard/account settings page

Once a key is confirmed present, never guess the model ID -- verify the exact ID against that provider's own API before writing it anywhere. Every provider gets checked the same way, including Anthropic: ``bash # Anthropic curl -s https://api.anthropic.com/v1/models -H "x-api-key: $ANTHROPIC_API_KEY" -H "anthropic-version: 2023-06-01" # OpenRouter curl -s https://openrouter.ai/api/v1/models -H "Authorization: Bearer $OPENROUTER_API_KEY" \ | python3 -c "import json,sys; print([m['id'] for m in json.load(sys.stdin)['data'] if '' in m['id']])" ` (In a Claude Code session that has it installed, the claude-api skill is a faster shortcut covering the same Anthropic catalog -- use it if available, but the curl above works with no dependency on any particular tool.) A plausible-looking bare model name (e.g. gpt-5.6) may not exist -- only specific suffixed variants might (e.g. openai/gpt-5.6-luna-pro`), and Claude names get hallucinated the same way (appended dates, made-up versions like "claude-sonnet-5"). Ask the user to pick if there's ambiguity; don't guess.

1. Repo name / destination. Where should the solution folder live, and

what should the eventual GitHub repo be called?

Three starting points

The scaffold script always handles the surrounding scaffolding (trap.yaml, directory layout, .envrc/.env.example, .gitignore) the same way. What differs is solution.py -- how much of it, if any, the script should write.

1. From scratch, no existing code. Let the script generate a template solution.py with a build_prompt() hook (default: bare relay, no system prompt -- a useful floor/baseline to compare other solutions against). Customize build_prompt() for anything more elaborate.

2. You already have a working solution.py. Pass --skip-solution-py to the scaffold script so it only writes the surrounding files, then place your existing script in the repo. The only two things it needs to satisfy the task contract: read TRAP_MANIFEST (a JSON env var, {inputs_dir, outputs_dir}) to find the task's input files, and print the final answer to stdout. If it already does something equivalent (e.g. reads argv paths instead), adapt just that part -- the rest of your logic is yours to keep as-is. Reference references/trap-yaml-schema.md for the exact manifest contract.

3. Adapting an existing external project you found elsewhere (a GitHub repo, a research reproduction, someone else's agent). This is the most involved path and the scaffold script alone will not do it -- go read the target project first:

• What does it actually take as input, and how do you invoke it -- a CLI

command, a Python import, an HTTP call to a server you'd need to run?

• Does it already produce a single final answer, or does it need glue code

to extract one (e.g. it prints a lot of intermediate reasoning and you need the last line, or it writes a result file you need to read back)?

• Does it have its own dependencies, and can those coexist with uv run /

PEP 723 inline deps, or does it need its own virtualenv / pyproject.toml that the generated trap.yaml's cmd: should invoke instead?

Then write a bespoke solution.py (or cmd: that invokes something else entirely -- cmd: just needs to be a shell command, it doesn't have to be uv run solution.py) that acts as a thin adapter: reads TRAP_MANIFEST, drives the external project however it's actually meant to be driven, and prints its final answer to stdout. Run the scaffold script with --skip-solution-py for the rest of the scaffolding, same as path 2. This is exactly the shape used for wrapping real community Claude Skills in past sessions -- fetch the target's own files (its equivalent of SKILL.md

• reference docs), load them faithfully as the system prompt or feed them

into the adapter's logic, rather than reimplementing an approximation of what the project does.

Layout: single model vs. multiple

Single model -- flat layout, trap.yaml at the repo root next to solution.py.

Multiple models/providers being compared -- one shared solution.py at the repo root (using PEP 723 inline script metadata for its dependencies, so no separate pyproject.toml/uv.lock is needed), plus one subdirectory per variant holding only a trap.yaml. Each variant's cmd: bakes the provider and model in as literal CLI arguments. This is the load-bearing design decision -- see "Why not a MODEL env var" below for the real incident that motivates it. As of trap-cli v0.0.8, SOLUTION is a positional argument and the task alias is a --task flag (older CLIs had it the other way around -- check tp run --help if unsure which you have): tp run ./ --task (or cd && tp run --task ) runs one variant; there's no built-in "run every variant at once" -- each is independent from trap-cli's point of view.

Read references/trap-yaml-schema.md for the exact schema, the model-drift rationale in full, and the manifest contract.

Generating the files

The generated trap.yaml only targets the current (new-generation) trap-cli schema -- tp run --help 2>&1 | grep -c -- "--trust-remote" (>=1 = new generation). If the installed CLI is old-generation (trapstreet-cli, no match), these templates will not work as-is; have the user upgrade first (uv tool uninstall trapstreet-cli && uv tool install trap-cli) rather than hand-adapting the schema.

Use the bundled script rather than hand-writing every file -- it's deterministic and gets the escaping/relative-path plumbing right:

python3 scripts/scaffold_solution.py \
  --output-dir  \
  --repo-name  \
  --task-source  \
  --task-alias  \
  --variant anthropic:claude-opus-4-8 \
  --variant openrouter:openai/gpt-5.6-luna-pro \  # repeat --variant per model; single entry = flat layout
  --skip-solution-py   # omit this flag for starting point 1; include it for 2 and 3

This writes .envrc, .env.example, .gitignore, and either one trap.yaml (single variant) or one subdirectory per variant (multiple); solution.py too, unless --skip-solution-py was passed. It does not run git init or create a GitHub repo -- do those explicitly, and confirm with the user before pushing anywhere public.

After generating: actually read the generated solution.py and customize build_prompt() if the solution needs real logic beyond a bare relay (e.g. reading a SKILL.md next to the script and returning it as the system prompt). The template's call_anthropic()/call_openrouter() dispatch functions handle the API mechanics; build_prompt() is the one hook meant to be edited.

Before the first run

Before any of this: confirm .env actually has real values, not just .env.example's blanks copied over. If a key turns out to be missing only now, stop and get it (the interview's API keys step above has where to look) rather than let the first real run crash on it.

Three things to get right before tp run touches anything -- in this order, because scaffolding starts from nothing: no cost spent yet, no git history yet, no task-version check done yet.

1. Cost -- ask before any paid call happens

tp run never talks to the platform, but the solution's own API calls bill normally, and this skill often multiplies the bill: several variants (one per provider/model from the interview) times however many cases the task has. Classify before running anything; can't tell = treat as paid and ask:

• No paid calls, confirmed (deterministic code -- no LLM SDK, no API key in env/.env, no HTTP

to a paid endpoint): free to iterate, skip the rest of this section.

• Paid calls: spending the user's money is a gate with the same weight as the CLI's own

safety gates -- no paid call happens before the user's OK, the first smoke test included. Estimate one full pass per variant (case count from the task's traptask.yaml x calls per case x that provider's price; order of magnitude is enough), total the whole plan across every variant, and get consent through a structured question (see "Gates and consent" below). Can't estimate confidently? Get consent for a 1-case smoke first: trim a local copy of the task's cases to one, point a scratch trap.yaml at it, run it, read the real per-case cost off report.json, then delete the scratch copy (a forgotten copy is the same stale-version trap as running against an unpinned task checkout). Smoke numbers are wiring evidence, never a result -- they are not the submission candidate.

2. Task provenance

A run only submits successfully if the task's local git commit is actually registered on trapstreet.run. This is a real, repeatedly-hit failure mode -- the task repo can move past whatever was last published (e.g. after a revert) and every submission then fails with a 404 saying the task version "isn't registered on the platform." Check this before spending a real API call on tp run:

python3 scripts/check_provenance.py  

If it reports a mismatch, don't try to work around it silently -- it prints the options (re-publish, or a temporary checkout of the published commit if content is confirmed identical) and explicitly flags that the checkout option needs the repo owner's confirmation before doing it, since it's a detached-HEAD state change on a possibly-shared checkout.

3. Solution provenance -- git init early, anchor before you spend for real

The scaffold script does not run git init or create a GitHub repo (previous section) -- so the very first tp run in a freshly scaffolded directory has no git history at all, which trips the CLI's unanchored gate immediately. git init locally is free and safe to do without asking (it touches nothing public); the public push is the part that needs the user's go-ahead.

Sequencing matters more than the init itself, because tp run bakes git provenance into report.json at the moment it runs -- a run born from a dirty or unpushed tree is unanchored forever, and committing afterwards cannot retrofit it; the only fix is running again, at full price if the pass was paid:

• Free passes: iterate unanchored freely; before the run meant to be the submission

candidate, commit + push (with the user's OK), then run.

• Paid passes: get the wiring right on the 1-case smoke first (smoke runs are unanchored too,

and that is expected -- they are not a submission candidate anyway), then commit + push, and make the first full-price pass per variant the submittable one. Never let a full-price pass run unanchored "just to test" -- that silently doubles the bill, and the user may not have budget for the second half.

Also applies mid-iteration: if you edit trap.yaml after the repo is anchored (e.g. switching a model), commit + push again before re-running, or the new run's provenance will not reflect the edit (bitten twice in real usage: an unstaged yaml edit, and tp submit silently re-uploading a stale pre-existing report instead of the fresh run).

One more thing while here: give each solution its own dedicated git repo, not a shared monorepo -- a monorepo where anything else is dirty nulls out the whole repo's provenance ("local never ranks"), so a perfectly clean solution folder still gets shut out by an unrelated dirty sibling.

Gates and consent

The CLI's two confirmation gates (remote-source, unanchored) and the cost gate above are all the user's decisions, not yours -- explain, don't relay: the gate vocabulary and flag names in this document are for you, not for them. Ask through the harness's structured question tool when one exists (one question per gate, plain words in the question and option descriptions, a marked recommendation); fall back to plain text only when no such tool exists. For the remote-source gate, say whose code is about to run -- "this task's judging code, from the task repo you pointed at" reads very differently depending on whether that repo is the user's own, and the recommendation should reflect that.

Submitting

Try tp submit --task first (positional SOLUTION + --task flag, as of trap-cli v0.0.8 -- older CLIs used --solution instead). If it reports status ✗ failed, score None on what looks like a genuinely valid report, that's a known historical CLI bug -- uv tool upgrade trap-cli first in case it's been fixed, and if not, fall back to POSTing the report directly (exact command in references/trap-yaml-schema.md). The go-ahead requirement is in Ground rules above -- it applies here without exception.

Why not a MODEL env var (the short version)

Earlier real solutions read MODEL from the environment and separately declared profile.model in trap.yaml for the leade

…

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

• Author: trapstreet
• Source: trapstreet/trapstreet-skills
• License: MIT
• Homepage: https://trapstreet.run

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.