PuGa/docs/library.md

Using puga as a library (not the CLI)

The tools/*.py scripts cover the common questions. For anything more involved — a custom what-if, a one-off cost breakdown with wages and capex, a market check the CLI doesn't expose — import the modules directly and write a short script inline. This is normal; most answers in this project's history came from a python - <<EOF ... EOF block, not a tool flag.

. .venv/bin/activate   # or use .venv/bin/python directly
python - <<'EOF'
from puga import market, econ, fio, prunplanner as pp, saturation as sat
...
EOF

Modules and what they give you

• puga.fio — public FIO REST, cached. exchange_all(), order_book(mat, cx) (full book, BuyingOrders/SellingOrders), recipes(), buildings(), materials(), planets_full(), workforce_needs(). own(path, ttl=0) for the player's authenticated data (/sites/{u}, /storage/{u}, /production/{u} — has live Efficiency/Condition per building, /workforce/{u}/{planet}, /ship/ships/{u}, /ship/flights/{u}). me() gives the configured username.
• puga.prunplanner — exchanges() (has vwap_daily/7d/30d, traded volume — richer than FIO's book totals), recipes()/buildings() (different field names than fio's: building_ticker, material_ticker, snake_case), _g(path, ttl) for any other /data/... GET (e.g. _g(f"/data/planet/{id}/", 3600) for fertility, resources, COGC, build requirements). request(method, path, body) for authenticated calls (Api-Key) — reads are always fine; writes must go through tools/plan_push.py's guardrails, don't call request("POST"/"PUT"/"DELETE", "/planning/plan/...") directly.
• puga.market — snapshot(refresh=False) returns {(ticker, cx): Quote} merging FIO book totals with PRUNplanner's VWAP/volume; this is the one-stop source for prices, use it instead of calling fio/prunplanner separately. walk(mat, cx, qty, side, refresh=False) walks the live order book for a real fill price (side="buy" hits asks, "sell" hits bids; handles market-maker orders with ItemCount: None as unlimited). uni30(snap, tk) = PRUNplanner's "Universe 30D" price basis (volume-weighted 30d VWAP across all CX).
• puga.econ — pure formulas, no I/O, ported from PRUNplanner and tested against its own suite plus live FIO: tier_efficiency, workforce_consumption, building_efficiency, production_io, daily_extraction/extraction_cycle, optimize_habs, CONSUMPTION (the per-tier need table), HAB_CAP/HAB_AREA, TIERS. This is what you use for "what if I understaff this building" or "what's the real wage bill for N heads" — the CLI tools only expose fixed slices of this.
• puga.saturation — tref, n_out, p_patient, effective_supply, is_thin: the depth/persistence primitives behind scan.py. Reuse these instead of re-deriving a "how many buildings can the market take" estimate by hand.
• puga.simulate — simulate(plan, recipes, buildings, resources, fertility, price, ...): the PRUNplanner-simulator replica. Reuse this for anything plan-shaped rather than reimplementing efficiency/workforce/flows again.
• puga.config — get(key) reads .env; state_path() returns the real empire/state/company.yaml if synced, else the tracked example.

Patterns that come up a lot

Price a basket at real fill cost (construction lists, working stock, a chain's inputs):

from puga import market, fio
mat = {m["Ticker"]: m for m in fio.materials()}
def price(items, cx="AI1"):
    tot = wt = 0
    for t, q in items.items():
        w = market.walk(t, cx, q, "buy"); tot += w["total"]; wt += q * mat[t]["Weight"]
    return tot, wt

Building construction cost incl. MCG, using either fio.buildings() (Ticker, BuildingCosts, AreaCost) or prunplanner.buildings() (building_ticker, costs, area_cost) — pick one client and stay consistent within a script, the field names differ.

Efficiency of a hypothetical building, e.g. staffing/COGC/expert what-ifs:

from puga import econ
eff, elements = econ.building_efficiency(
    dict(pioneers=40, settlers=10), {"pioneer": 1.0, "settler": 1.0},
    expertise="METALLURGY", cogc="METALLURGY", experts={"METALLURGY": 2},
    faction="ANTARES", permits_used=1, permits_total=2)

Live production truth (skip the model, read the game's own number):

from puga import fio
for line in fio.own(f"/production/{fio.me()}", ttl=0):
    print(line["Type"], line["Efficiency"], line["Condition"])

A recipe's daily flows for N buildings:

io = econ.production_io([dict(time_ms=r["TimeMs"], inputs=..., outputs=...)], eff, n_buildings)

puga.simulate.simulate() only knows what the plan tells it

simulate() (and anything built on it, e.g. tools/buy.py) computes material flows from the plan_data's own building list — it has no idea what else exists at the base beyond the built dict used for the construction-gap check. Pass a plan covering everything whose production or consumption matters, not just the piece you're adding, or a self-sufficient material will look like something you need to buy (a standalone HWP plan says "buy 42.8 AL/day"; the full base+HWP plan nets that against the smelters to ~0). This bit a first version of tools/buy.py; caught by comparing it against the by-hand restock calc, not by a unit test (the pure functions were right, the plan file chosen was wrong).

Multi-base chains: puga.network

For a decision that spans two or more bases (mine LST at Nike, ship it, turn it into BSE at Deimos), don't price the transferred material at market on both ends — that double counts a trade that never happens. puga.network.combine() simulates each base independently (each base's own profit is still correct market-priced), then nets any transferred material between a producer's surplus and a consumer's need, charging only the real freight for what's actually moved; leftover surplus is still validly sold at market by the source, leftover deficit still validly bought by the destination — those are already right in each base's own numbers, so combine() only adds the one correction neither side has. CLI: tools/network.py <chain.yaml>, spec format and a worked example (Nike LST -> Deimos PP2/BSE) in plans/chains/.

Two gotchas specific to this: (1) each base's plan must be self-contained (see above) - Nike's plan needs its OWN housing even though Deimos's doesn't compete for it; (2) a NEW base's plan always prices a fresh core module unless the founding source (e.g. a Core Module Kit) actually covers it - mark it with cm_free: true on that base in the chain spec (mirrors tools/simulate.py --cm-free), or the phantom ~200k core-module cost craters an otherwise-fine ROI. (3) each base's reported profit/day is for its WHOLE plan, not the marginal addition - for "is this new building worth it", also simulate the base without the addition and diff, same as tools/simulate.py's built-vs-planned new_capex logic but applied to profit instead of capex.

Conventions to keep

• Cache TTLs matter: market data is cached ~15 min, static game data ~24h (puga/cache.py). Pass refresh=True if you just changed something in-game and need it now.
• fio uses PascalCase ticker/field names (MaterialTicker, TimeMs); prunplanner uses snake_case (material_ticker, time_ms). Don't mix them in the same dict without converting.
• Never call prunplanner.request with a write verb outside tools/plan_push.py — the [PuGa] name guard and dry-run default live there, not in the client.
• One-off scripts like these are fine to throw away; if a calculation gets reused more than once or two, promote it into a function in the relevant module instead of re-deriving it in a shell heredoc each time.