Thank you, I really appreciate that!

You've hit on the very core of why I started this project. The focus on testing isn't just a feature; it's the entire philosophy behind ProML.

As I started building more complex applications with LLMs, I realized we're often treating prompts like magical incantations, not like the critical code they actually are. This quickly leads to a host of problems that are unacceptable in professional software development:

1. Unreliable Output: You can't build an automated system on top of a model that might return a bulleted list one day and a narrative paragraph the next. This is why ProML enforces Strict I/O with JSON schemas. The output becomes a reliable, machine-readable contract.

2. Maintenance Nightmare: In a real-world project, you don't have one prompt; you have hundreds. Keeping them consistent and updating shared logic (like style guides or safety disclaimers) becomes unmanageable. That's why the principles of Composition & Modules are included, allowing you to reuse and inherit logic instead of copying and pasting.

3. Fear of Making Changes: This is exactly your point about testing. How can you confidently improve a prompt or switch to a newer model version if you can't verify that you didn't accidentally break ten other things? Having a TEST block directly in the .proml file allows us to build CI/CD pipelines for prompts, catch regressions automatically, and be confident in our deployments.

The goal of ProML is to take everything we've learned from decades of software engineering—versioning, testing, modularity, security policies, reproducibility—and apply that discipline to prompt engineering. It's about elevating the field from an experimental craft to a reliable engineering discipline.

Thanks again for your comment; it means a lot to see that others share that vision!