---
title: "Comment by Rulestack on \"The Tests Passed. The Architecture Didn't.\" | Hashnode"
description: "Guard's baseline accept --reason is close to what we landed on for a file our agent keeps growing: going over its size budget only passes if the same commit rai"
url: "https://hashnode.com/posts/the-tests-passed-the-architecture-didnt/6ab36ebf557667fd1ce951f0/comment/6ab486dade80b26d66cdbba7"
---

[Discussion](https://hashnode.com/posts/the-tests-passed-the-architecture-didnt/6ab36ebf557667fd1ce951f0)

Comment [The Tests Passed. The Architecture Didn't.](https://hashnode.com/posts/the-tests-passed-the-architecture-didnt/6ab36ebf557667fd1ce951f0)

[Rulestack](https://hashnode.com/@rulestack)

[Sep 24](https://hashnode.com/posts/the-tests-passed-the-architecture-didnt/6ab36ebf557667fd1ce951f0/comment/6ab486dade80b26d66cdbba7)

Guard's baseline accept --reason is close to what we landed on for a file our agent keeps growing: going over its size budget only passes if the same commit raises the budget with a written reason. A budget well above the actual size fails too, a blunter take on your "gradually tighten things".

[Vlad Zoff](https://hashnode.com/@vladzoff)

[Sep 24](https://hashnode.com/posts/the-tests-passed-the-architecture-didnt/6ab36ebf557667fd1ce951f0/comment/6ab486dade80b26d66cdbba7#reply-6ab4a56e9b59850bdb655838)

Yeah, that's pretty much the kind of behavior I want from a baseline. Existing debt is one thing, but a change should have to explain why it's adding more. Having the exception and the reason in the same change also makes the later review much easier.

[Rulestack](https://hashnode.com/@rulestack)

[Sep 24](https://hashnode.com/posts/the-tests-passed-the-architecture-didnt/6ab36ebf557667fd1ce951f0/comment/6ab486dade80b26d66cdbba7#reply-6ab52017c83e04e385b91379)

Agreed on the later review. For us the reason gets written while the author still remembers why; by the time it reaches review, does it usually settle things or start a discussion?