currently, no. we will probably have both flowing and unflowing forms in spec 2

you might get away with moving spec to the last position in the s/and, depending on resilience of your predicates to random input. @kenny or, if this is the only place you use predicates – make them expect conformed value

Hmm. Can't do the latter because the predicates are used on the regular form of the data too.

you could wrap s/nonconforming around each pred

(s/def ::base-metric
  (s/and
    (s/nonconforming ::metric/metric)
    (s/nonconforming metric-bounds-lower-less-than-or-equal-to-upper?)
    (s/nonconforming metric-default-value-within-bounds?)))

something like that

Ah, that's a lot nicer.

That doesn't appear to work for all cases.

Oh, I missed the first one.

This is going to make things so much cleaner! Thanks @alexmiller 😃

(defmacro and2
  [& pred-forms]
  (let [pred-forms (map (fn [pred-form]
                          `(s/nonconforming ~pred-form)) pred-forms)]
    `(s/and ~@pred-forms)))

Per the description of every, the :kind pred "must generate in order for every to generate". I see that preds like set? can generate, e.g., (gen/sample (s/gen (s/spec set?))), but I'm at a loss as to how to provide generators for custom preds.

there is no open mechanism to bind generators to custom preds currently

you can provide the :kind pred as a separate spec outside s/every too (s/and (s/with-gen my-pred ...) (s/every ...))

that said, what kind of pred are you using that's not a core pred?