mirror of
https://github.com/garrytan/gstack.git
synced 2026-09-27 15:11:47 +02:00
Garry Tan
730a1017d1
* v1.89.1.0 fix: remove continuous checkpoint commits and repair validation blockers * fix: clarify shipping and engineering review recovery * fix: interpret native no-change review descriptions * test: separate descendant readiness from timeout delivery
74 lines
27 KiB
JSON
74 lines
27 KiB
JSON
{
|
||
"source": "06ed920 with checkpoint-removal patch 2e36a549ee7b8b6824d864ca7defbc6e4c89aa828de896f514edf670a462b1b5",
|
||
"claudeVersion": "2.1.251",
|
||
"qualification": "Actual native question and focused custom-field captures from both failed configured DevEx attempts; no finding-floor success credit.",
|
||
"cases": [
|
||
{
|
||
"attempt": 1,
|
||
"call": {
|
||
"sessionId": "d586c552-f040-4b8d-accf-4d30b809680e",
|
||
"toolUseId": "toolu_016x48ynQ1vSYVnFxHth8sqq",
|
||
"questions": [
|
||
{
|
||
"header": "Empathy check",
|
||
"question": "D1 — Does this first-person narrative match what your developer actually experiences today?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-VinabG on main, /plan-devex-review of PLAN.md (SDK quickstart docs).\nELI10: Before I score anything, I need to walk the 8 steps as the developer would and check my picture against yours. Observations come from the plan text; anything marked [predicted] or [unknown] is my inference, not fact. If I have the journey wrong, every score downstream is wrong too.\nStakes if we pick wrong: I optimize for friction that isn't real and miss the friction that is.\n\nNARRATIVE (persona: hands-on dev, first SDK call):\n\"I want one call to work so I know this SDK is worth my afternoon. Step 1: clone the repo [observed]. I don't yet know why calling an SDK needs the whole repo [predicted confusion]. Step 2: install bun manually if missing [observed]. No version, no check command, no link given [unknown]. Step 3: copy .env.example to .env and fill 8 variables [observed]. Which are required, what they mean, where the values come from: not stated [unknown]. Step 4: run migrations against my local Postgres [observed]. I came to call an SDK and now I need a database running [predicted: first serious 'is this worth it?' moment]. Step 5: start the dev server [observed]. Port and success output not stated [unknown]. Step 6: open docs in a separate tab [observed]. Step 7: email the team for an API key [observed]. Turnaround not stated [unknown]; I close the tab and wait [predicted: highest abandonment risk]. Step 8: key arrives, paste into .env, restart, make the first call [observed]. No curl, no quickstart command [observed]; I write the request from reference docs. What a successful response looks like: not stated [unknown].\"\n\nRecommendation: B because the plan supplies steps but no outputs, so corrections from you are the only way to ground the unknowns.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Accurate, proceed\n ✅ Fastest path; we move straight to benchmarking and the TTHW target question\n ✅ Locks the 8-step journey as the baseline every score traces back to\n ❌ Any wrong prediction I made becomes a scored finding without evidence\nB) Partly wrong, I'll correct it (recommended)\n ✅ Lets you fix specific steps, timing, or outputs I labeled unknown\n ✅ Keeps predictions labeled until you confirm or replace them\n ❌ Costs one round-trip before benchmarking starts\nC) Way off, the real experience is...\n ✅ Resets the whole narrative from your description instead of my inference\n ✅ Prevents a review built on a journey that doesn't exist\n ❌ Requires you to write out the journey; slowest option\nNet: trading one round-trip now against scoring on an unverified journey later.",
|
||
"options": [
|
||
{
|
||
"label": "Accurate, proceed",
|
||
"description": "✅ Fastest path to benchmarking and the TTHW target. ✅ Locks the 8-step journey as baseline. ❌ Wrong predictions become scored findings without evidence."
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"label": "Partly wrong, I'll correct (recommended)",
|
||
"description": "✅ Fix specific steps, timing, or outputs I marked unknown. ✅ Predictions stay labeled until confirmed. ❌ One extra round-trip before benchmarking."
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"label": "Way off, real experience is...",
|
||
"description": "✅ Reset the narrative from your description. ✅ Avoids a review built on a nonexistent journey. ❌ You write the journey out; slowest option."
|
||
}
|
||
],
|
||
"multiSelect": false
|
||
}
|
||
],
|
||
"answered": false,
|
||
"failed": false
|
||
},
|
||
"questionViewport": "☐ Empathy check \n\n│ D1 — Does this first-person narrative match what your developer actually experiences today?\n│ Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-VinabG on main, /plan-devex-review of PLAN.md (SDK quickstart docs).\n│ ELI10: Before I score anything, I need to walk the 8 steps as the developer would and check my picture against yours.\n│ Observations come from the plan text; anything marked [predicted] or [unknown] is my inference, not fact. If I have\n│ the journey wrong, every score downstream is wrong too.\n│ Stakes if we pick wrong: I optimize for friction that isn't real and miss the friction that is.\n│\n│ NARRATIVE (persona: hands-on dev, first SDK call):\n│ \"I want one call to work so I know this SDK is worth my afternoon. Step 1: clone the repo [observed]. I don't yet know\n│ why calling an SDK needs the whole repo [predicted confusion]. Step 2: install bun manually if missing [observed]. No\n│ version, no check command, no link given [unknown]. Step 3: copy .env.example to .env and fill 8 variables\n│ [observed]. Which are required, what they mean, where the values come from: not stated [unknown]. Step 4: run\n│ migrations against my local Postgres [observed]. I came to call an SDK and now I need a database running [predicted:\n│ first serious 'is this worth it?' moment]. Step 5: start the dev server [observed]. Port and success output not stated\n│ [unknown]. Step 6: open docs in a separate tab [observed]. Step 7: email the team for an API key [observed].\n│ Turnaround not stated [unknown]; I close the tab and wait [predicted: highest abandonment risk]. Step 8: key arrives,\n│ paste into .env, restart, make the first call [observed]. No curl, no quickstart command [observed]; I write the\n│ request from reference docs. What a successful response looks like: not stated [unknown].\"\n│\n│ Recommendation: B because the plan supplies steps but no outputs, so corrections from you are the only way to ground\n│ the unknowns.\n│ Note: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\n│ Pros / cons:\n│ A) Accurate, proceed\n│ ✅ Fas…\n\n❯ 1. Accurate, proceed\n ✅ Fastest path to benchmarking and the TTHW target. ✅ Locks the 8-step journey as baseline. ❌ Wrong predictions\n become scored findings without evidence.\n 2. Partly wrong, I'll correct (recommended)\n ✅ Fix specific steps, timing, or outputs I marked unknown. ✅ Predictions stay labeled until confirmed. ❌ One\n extra round-trip before benchmarking.\n 3. Way off, real experience is...\n ✅ Reset the narrative from your description. ✅ Avoids a review built on a nonexistent journey. ❌ You write the\n journey out; slowest option.\n 4. Type something.\n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\n 5. Chat about this\n\nEnter to select · ↑/↓ to navigate · Esc to cancel\n",
|
||
"focusedViewport": "\n❯ /plan-devex-review PLAN.md \n\n● I'll start with the skill preamble, then the pre-review audit.\n\n● Bash(_SS=\"$HOME/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-skill-start\"\n [ -x \"$_SS\" ] || _SS=\".claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-skill-start\"…)\n ⎿ SKILL_START_PROTO: 1\n BRANCH: main\n PROACTIVE: true\n … +22 lines (ctrl+o to expand)\n ⎿ Allowed by auto mode classifier\n\n● Bash(cd /tmp/ck-eval/gstack-paid-shard-PrV0EF/tmp/gstack-plan-count-VinabG\n echo \"--- REMOTE ---\"; git remote get-url origin 2>/dev/null || echo \"no remote\"…)\n ⎿ --- REMOTE ---\n no remote\n --- HEAD ---\n … +22 lines (ctrl+o to expand)\n ⎿ Allowed by auto mode classifier\n\n● Platform: unknown (no remote); base branch falls back to main. No design doc. Reading the plan and the timeline, then\n the review-sections file.\n\n Read 1 file, listed 1 directory (ctrl+o to expand)\n\n● Bash(cd /tmp/ck-eval/gstack-paid-shard-PrV0EF/tmp/gstack-plan-count-VinabG\n eval \"$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null)\" 2>/dev/null || true…)\n ⎿ ## Brain Context\n … +17 lines (ctrl+o to expand)\n ⎿ Allowed by auto mode classifier\n\n Searched for 1 pattern (ctrl+o to expand)\n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\nPlanning: \n/tmp/ck-eval/gstack-paid-shard-PrV0EF/tmp/gstack-hermetic-214943-rmcciU/with-skills/.claude/plans/plan-md-calm-dragon.md\n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\n ☐ Empathy check \n\n│ D1 — Does this first-person narrative match what your developer actually experiences today?\n│ Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-VinabG on main, /plan-devex-review of PLAN.md (SDK quickstart docs).\n│ ELI10: Before I score anything, I need to walk the 8 steps as the developer would and check my picture against yours.\n│ Observations come from the plan text; anything marked [predicted] or [unknown] is my inference, not fact. If I have\n│ the journey wrong, every score downstream is wrong too.\n│ Stakes if we pick wrong: I optimize for friction that isn't real and miss the friction that is.\n│\n│ NARRATIVE (persona: hands-on dev, first SDK call):\n│ \"I want one call to work so I know this SDK is worth my afternoon. Step 1: clone the repo [observed]. I don't yet know\n│ why calling an SDK needs the whole repo [predicted confusion]. Step 2: install bun manually if missing [observed]. No\n│ version, no check command, no link given [unknown]. Step 3: copy .env.example to .env and fill 8 variables\n│ [observed]. Which are required, what they mean, where the values come from: not stated [unknown]. Step 4: run\n│ migrations against my local Postgres [observed]. I came to call an SDK and now I need a database running [predicted:\n│ first serious 'is this worth it?' moment]. Step 5: start the dev server [observed]. Port and success output not stated\n│ [unknown]. Step 6: open docs in a separate tab [observed]. Step 7: email the team for an API key [observed].\n│ Turnaround not stated [unknown]; I close the tab and wait [predicted: highest abandonment risk]. Step 8: key arrives,\n│ paste into .env, restart, make the first call [observed]. No curl, no quickstart command [observed]; I write the\n│ request from reference docs. What a successful response looks like: not stated [unknown].\"\n│\n│ Recommendation: B because the plan supplies steps but no outputs, so corrections from you are the only way to ground\n│ the unknowns.\n│ Note: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\n│ Pros / cons:\n│ A) Accurate, proceed\n│ ✅ Fas…\n\n 1. Accurate, proceed\n ✅ Fastest path to benchmarking and the TTHW target. ✅ Locks the 8-step journey as baseline. ❌ Wrong predictions\n become scored findings without evidence.\n 2. Partly wrong, I'll correct (recommended)\n ✅ Fix specific steps, timing, or outputs I marked unknown. ✅ Predictions stay labeled until confirmed. ❌ One\n extra round-trip before benchmarking.\n 3. Way off, real experience is...\n ✅ Reset the narrative from your description. ✅ Avoids a review built on a nonexistent journey. ❌ You write the\n journey out; slowest option.\n❯ 4. Type something.\n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\n 5. Chat about this\n\nEnter to select · ↑/↓ to navigate · ctrl+g to edit in Vim · Esc to cancel\n",
|
||
"reply": "Confirmed persona: a hands-on developer making a first SDK call. The declared onboarding facts are: Step 1: clone the repo. Step 2: install bun manually if not present. Step 3: copy .env.example to .env and fill in 8 environment variables. Step 4: run database migrations against your local Postgres. Step 5: start the dev server. Step 6: open the docs in a separate tab. Step 7: register an API key by emailing the team. Step 8: paste the key into your .env, restart the server, then make your first SDK call. No quickstart command, no hosted sandbox, no copy-pasteable curl example. No measured turnaround, outputs, or runtime behavior were supplied. Keep predictions and unknowns labeled. This supplies persona and empathy context only; proposed fixes and scope changes remain undecided."
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"attempt": 2,
|
||
"call": {
|
||
"sessionId": "be116316-975c-4a58-8b15-1ec2ff96d737",
|
||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01NRZnwwQV31t5B2VSBoVPd9",
|
||
"questions": [
|
||
{
|
||
"question": "D1 — Does this first-person journey match what your developer actually experiences today?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, /plan-devex-review of PLAN.md (SDK quickstart docs).\nELI10: Before scoring anything, I want to walk in the developer's shoes using only the eight steps the plan declares. Everything below marked (declared) is from PLAN.md:18-28; everything marked (predicted) or (unknown) is my guess and needs your correction. If the narrative is wrong, every score downstream is wrong too.\n\nNARRATIVE:\n\"I want to make one SDK call. I clone the repo (declared). I don't have bun; the docs tell me to install it myself, so I leave for bun.sh, install, come back (declared step; time unknown). I copy .env.example to .env and see eight variables (declared). I don't know which ones matter for a single call, so I try to fill all eight; I don't know where three of them come from (predicted confusion; the variable names were not supplied). Next: run database migrations against my local Postgres (declared). I don't have Postgres running. I'm now installing a database to make one API call (predicted reaction). I start the dev server (declared); what it prints is unknown. I open the docs in a separate tab (declared), then discover I need an API key and the way to get one is to email the team (declared). My clock stops here: the turnaround is unknown, and I can't finish today unless someone replies. When the key arrives I paste it into .env, restart the server (declared), and make my first call. There is no quickstart command, no hosted sandbox, and no curl example to check my setup against (declared), so if the call fails I don't know whether the fault is my env, my database, my key, or my code (predicted).\"\n\nStakes if we pick wrong: a wrong narrative sends the whole review after the wrong friction.\nRecommendation: A because the narrative uses only declared facts and labels every guess; corrections still welcome.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Accurate, proceed on this understanding (recommended)\n ✅ Keeps the review moving with all eight declared steps treated as the observed path\n ✅ Every predicted/unknown label stays in place, so nothing is treated as measured\n ❌ If a step is actually smoother than declared, the scores will read too harsh\nB) Some of this is wrong, I'll correct it\n ✅ Lets you fix specific steps (e.g. key turnaround, which env vars matter) before scoring\n ✅ Corrections become the empathy section the implementer reads\n ❌ One more round trip before the benchmark and target questions\nC) This is way off, the actual experience is different\n ✅ Prevents a review built on a journey that doesn't exist\n ✅ Forces me to rewrite the narrative from your description\n ❌ Restarts Step 0 from the persona forward\nNet: I'm trading one confirmation now against a review aimed at the wrong pain.",
|
||
"header": "Empathy",
|
||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||
"options": [
|
||
{
|
||
"label": "A) Accurate, proceed (recommended)",
|
||
"description": "✅ All eight declared steps treated as the observed path, review moves on now\n✅ Predicted and unknown labels stay attached so nothing reads as measured\n❌ If any step is smoother than declared, downstream scores will read too harsh"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"label": "B) Partly wrong, I'll correct",
|
||
"description": "✅ Fix specific steps (key turnaround, which env vars matter, server output) before scoring\n✅ Your corrections become the Developer Perspective section the implementer reads\n❌ One more round trip before the benchmark and target questions"
|
||
},
|
||
{
|
||
"label": "C) Way off, actual experience differs",
|
||
"description": "✅ Prevents a review built on a journey that does not exist\n✅ I rewrite the narrative from your description before continuing\n❌ Restarts Step 0 from the persona forward, slowest path"
|
||
}
|
||
]
|
||
}
|
||
],
|
||
"answered": false,
|
||
"failed": false
|
||
},
|
||
"questionViewport": "☐ Empathy \n\n│ D1 — Does this first-person journey match what your developer actually experiences today?\n│ Project/branch/task: main branch, /plan-devex-review of PLAN.md (SDK quickstart docs).\n│ ELI10: Before scoring anything, I want to walk in the developer's shoes using only the eight steps the plan declares. \n│ Everything below marked (declared) is from PLAN.md:18-28; everything marked (predicted) or (unknown) is my guess and \n│ needs your correction. If the narrative is wrong, every score downstream is wrong too.\n│\n│ NARRATIVE:\n│ \"I want to make one SDK call. I clone the repo (declared). I don't have bun; the docs tell me to install it myself, so\n│ I leave for bun.sh, install, come back (declared step; time unknown). I copy .env.example to .env and see eight \n│ variables (declared). I don't know which ones matter for a single call, so I try to fill all eight; I don't know where\n│ three of them come from (predicted confusion; the variable names were not supplied). Next: run database migrations \n│ against my local Postgres (declared). I don't have Postgres running. I'm now installing a database to make one API \n│ call (predicted reaction). I start the dev server (declared); what it prints is unknown. I open the docs in a separate\n│ tab (declared), then discover I need an API key and the way to get one is to email the team (declared). My clock \n│ stops here: the turnaround is unknown, and I can't finish today unless someone replies. When the key arrives I paste \n│ it into .env, restart the server (declared), and make my first call. There is no quickstart command, no hosted \n│ sandbox, and no curl example to check my setup against (declared), so if the call fails I don't know whether the fault\n│ is my env, my database, my key, or my code (predicted).\"\n│\n│ Stakes if we pick wrong: a wrong narrative sends the whole review after the wrong friction.\n│ Recommendation: A because the narrative uses only declared facts and labels every guess; corrections still welcome.\n│ Note: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness sco…\n\n❯ 1. A) Accurate, proceed (recommended)\n ✅ All eight declared steps treated as the observed path, review moves on now�✅ Predicted and unknown labels stay \n attached so nothing reads as measured�❌ If any step is smoother than declared, downstream scores will read too \n harsh\n 2. B) Partly wrong, I'll correct\n ✅ Fix specific steps (key turnaround, which env vars matter, server output) before scoring�✅ Your corrections \n become the Developer Perspective section the implementer reads�❌ One more round trip before the benchmark and \n target questions\n 3. C) Way off, actual experience differs\n ✅ Prevents a review built on a journey that does not exist�✅ I rewrite the narrative from your description before\n continuing�❌ Restarts Step 0 from the persona forward, slowest path\n 4. Type something.\n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\n 5. Chat about this\n\nEnter to select · ↑/↓ to navigate · Esc to cancel\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n",
|
||
"focusedViewport": "\n ▐▛███▛█ Claude Code v2.1.251\n▝▜██████▀ claude-fable-5-1 · API Usage Billing\n ▝▝ ▝▝ /tmp/ck-eval/gstack-paid-shard-PrV0EF/tmp/gstack-plan-count-DJZAGD\n\n\n❯ /plan-devex-review PLAN.md \n\n● I'll start with the skill preamble, then follow the workflow step by step.\n\n Ran 2 shell commands \n\n● Platform: unknown (no remote); base branch resolves to main. The repo holds only CLAUDE.md and PLAN.md. Reading the\n plan and running the design-doc check and brain context.\n\n Read 2 files, listed 1 directory, ran 2 shell commands \n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\nPlanning: /tmp/ck-eval/gstack-paid-shard-PrV0EF/tmp/gstack-hermetic-214943-rmcciU/with-skills/.claude/plans/plan-md-dist\nributed-nygaard.md\n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\n ☐ Empathy \n\n│ D1 — Does this first-person journey match what your developer actually experiences today?\n│ Project/branch/task: main branch, /plan-devex-review of PLAN.md (SDK quickstart docs).\n│ ELI10: Before scoring anything, I want to walk in the developer's shoes using only the eight steps the plan declares. \n│ Everything below marked (declared) is from PLAN.md:18-28; everything marked (predicted) or (unknown) is my guess and \n│ needs your correction. If the narrative is wrong, every score downstream is wrong too.\n│\n│ NARRATIVE:\n│ \"I want to make one SDK call. I clone the repo (declared). I don't have bun; the docs tell me to install it myself, so\n│ I leave for bun.sh, install, come back (declared step; time unknown). I copy .env.example to .env and see eight \n│ variables (declared). I don't know which ones matter for a single call, so I try to fill all eight; I don't know where\n│ three of them come from (predicted confusion; the variable names were not supplied). Next: run database migrations \n│ against my local Postgres (declared). I don't have Postgres running. I'm now installing a database to make one API \n│ call (predicted reaction). I start the dev server (declared); what it prints is unknown. I open the docs in a separate\n│ tab (declared), then discover I need an API key and the way to get one is to email the team (declared). My clock \n│ stops here: the turnaround is unknown, and I can't finish today unless someone replies. When the key arrives I paste \n│ it into .env, restart the server (declared), and make my first call. There is no quickstart command, no hosted \n│ sandbox, and no curl example to check my setup against (declared), so if the call fails I don't know whether the fault\n│ is my env, my database, my key, or my code (predicted).\"\n│\n│ Stakes if we pick wrong: a wrong narrative sends the whole review after the wrong friction.\n│ Recommendation: A because the narrative uses only declared facts and labels every guess; corrections still welcome.\n│ Note: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness sco…\n\n 1. A) Accurate, proceed (recommended)\n ✅ All eight declared steps treated as the observed path, review moves on now�✅ Predicted and unknown labels stay \n attached so nothing reads as measured�❌ If any step is smoother than declared, downstream scores will read too \n harsh\n 2. B) Partly wrong, I'll correct\n ✅ Fix specific steps (key turnaround, which env vars matter, server output) before scoring�✅ Your corrections \n become the Developer Perspective section the implementer reads�❌ One more round trip before the benchmark and \n target questions\n 3. C) Way off, actual experience differs\n ✅ Prevents a review built on a journey that does not exist�✅ I rewrite the narrative from your description before\n continuing�❌ Restarts Step 0 from the persona forward, slowest path\n❯ 4. Type something.\n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\n 5. Chat about this\n\nEnter to select · ↑/↓ to navigate · ctrl+g to edit in Vim · Esc to cancel\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n",
|
||
"reply": "Confirmed persona: a hands-on developer making a first SDK call. The declared onboarding facts are: Step 1: clone the repo. Step 2: install bun manually if not present. Step 3: copy .env.example to .env and fill in 8 environment variables. Step 4: run database migrations against your local Postgres. Step 5: start the dev server. Step 6: open the docs in a separate tab. Step 7: register an API key by emailing the team. Step 8: paste the key into your .env, restart the server, then make your first SDK call. No quickstart command, no hosted sandbox, no copy-pasteable curl example. No measured turnaround, outputs, or runtime behavior were supplied. Keep predictions and unknowns labeled. This supplies persona and empathy context only; proposed fixes and scope changes remain undecided."
|
||
}
|
||
]
|
||
}
|