FS26
Ctrl K
Phase 21 · Lesson 16

Mastery Capstone Lab

≈ 2 min core reading · 206 source/companion words
Learning contract

What you should be able to do after this

  • Explain Mastery Capstone Lab without relying on framework buzzwords.
  • Connect the lesson to the phase outcome: Build robust forms with React Hook Form and Zod while separating transient form state from authoritative server state.
  • Reproduce the relevant behavior and verify it with evidence.
  • Diagnose at least one representative failure instead of guessing.
Figure 21.16 — TaskFlow boundary map
input controls
React Hook Form state
Zod resolver
submit mutation
API validation/business rules
field/non-field feedback
This lesson belongs to Phase 21. Keep the full request/data path visible even when today's code changes only one box.
Instructor workflow: predict first → implement the smallest slice → run it → inspect evidence → break one assumption → diagnose → explain it back. Do not copy the whole code block before understanding the first failing boundary.

Mastery Capstone Lab

This is the transfer exercise for Phase 21: Forms with React Hook Form + Zod. The detailed lessons are now closed-book reference material. Your task is to prove that the phase outcome can be reproduced from requirements, repository evidence, and debugging—not by copying a finished implementation.

Target artifact Create/edit task forms with shared field rules, accessible errors, async submission, server-error mapping, and reset behavior.

Acceptance criteria - Write the behavior and constraints before implementation. - Identify the owning layer and every boundary crossed. - Implement the smallest complete vertical slice. - Verify the happy path from outside the implementation. - Demonstrate at least one expected failure path. - Run the phase-relevant quality checks. - Review the diff for accidental duplication, leaked responsibilities, missing validation/authorization, and hidden environment assumptions.

Evidence packet Save the command/request used, expected result, actual result, one failure reproduction, the fix, and a short explanation of why the final responsibility belongs where it does. This packet is more valuable than a screenshot of a green page because it demonstrates repeatable engineering reasoning.

Stretch Change one requirement after the first implementation. Measure which files must change. If a tiny domain change causes unrelated layers to move, use that evidence to discuss coupling before adding another abstraction.

Executable lesson studio · validation

Now turn the explanation into engineering skill.

A guided lesson proves you can follow. A capstone proves you can transfer the model to a requirement with fewer cues.

By the end, you should be able to

  • Build robust forms with React Hook Form and Zod while separating transient form state from authoritative server state.
  • Produce a reproducible evidence packet for success and failure.
  • Defend the architecture and identify one improvement without overengineering.
Figure 21.16B — Mental model
input controls
React Hook Form state
Zod resolver
submit mutation
API validation/business rules
field/non-field feedback
Read left-to-right while implementing. When debugging, walk right-to-left until the first observed fact differs from your prediction.
Code-along sequence

One coherent change at a time

  1. 01

    Define form values and defaults before wiring UI fields.

  2. 02

    Register basic fields and observe dirty/touched/submitting state intentionally.

  3. 03

    Connect Zod resolver and reuse only rules that genuinely belong in both client and API validation.

  4. 04

    Implement accessible field errors and focus behavior after invalid submit.

  5. 05

    Send data through the mutation layer and map server validation/conflict errors back to fields or form-level feedback.

  6. 06

    Implement edit/reset/cancel semantics and test what happens when server data changes while a form is open.

  7. 07

    Run the phase mastery checklist without looking at the provided implementation.

  8. 08

    Perform a short architecture review and document one trade-off you consciously accepted.

txtCapstone evidence packet
Requirement -> implementation diff -> verification -> controlled failure -> diagnosis -> final proof

Do not copy this as a finished answer. Predict what each boundary does, type the smallest useful slice, run it, then compare the result with your prediction.

Verification

Prove the happy path

  1. Can distinguish form state from server state
  2. Can build schema-backed forms
  3. Can handle async errors
  4. Can reason about create vs edit/reset lifecycles
Break it on purpose

Build debugging memory

  1. Duplicating server data into form state without reset strategy
  2. Assuming client validation secures the API
SymptomInvestigation path
You can only continue by copying the reference

Return to the mental model and acceptance criteria. Rebuild one smaller slice from first principles before reopening the source.

Everything seems to work but proof is weak

Choose an external observer: HTTP client, browser, database query, test runner, health endpoint, or deployment log, and capture deterministic evidence.

Closed-reference challenge

Can you transfer the idea?

Extend the phase artifact with one requirement not used in the guided example while preserving the same ownership rules and verification strategy.

Explain-back

Answer these without reopening the solution

  1. What did you build without a transcript?
  2. Which boundary caused the most reasoning effort?
  3. Which failure gave the strongest evidence?
  4. What shortcut did you deliberately avoid?
  5. What would you automate before repeating this in a team?
Lesson studio

Turn the reading into skill

01

Do it

Implement accessible field errors and focus behavior after invalid submit.

Use the smallest change that demonstrates this lesson. Stop after it works and capture evidence.
02

Break it safely

Showing only generic toast instead of actionable field errors

Predict the symptom before causing the failure. Then locate the earliest boundary where reality diverges from expectation.
03

Explain it back

Why does this responsibility live here, what input does it trust, what output proves success, and what would go wrong if another layer owned it?

If your explanation is vague, repeat the boundary trace before moving on.
Exit ticket

Before marking complete

Close the reference. Reproduce the core idea from memory or explain the exact request/data flow aloud. Then check your diff or notes for accidental shortcuts that bypass validation, authorization, error handling, or verification earned in earlier phases.

← Phase Synthesis & Independent ChallengePhase review →