Merged
Conversation
Owner
Author
|
/test ollama |
[SKILL EVALUATION] Results
🤖 LLM Judge: ps-composition-over-coordinationPrinciple Adherence: B Reasoning: Solution B demonstrates mastery of the composition over orchestration principle by creating clear, focused units with single responsibilities that communicate through interfaces. Solution A, while attempting to refactor, still contains a central Manager class that violates the principle by orchestrating multiple subsystems. Solution B achieves better modularity, testability, and flexibility through its well-structured composition, making it the superior implementation. 🤖 LLM Judge: ps-error-handling-designPrinciple Adherence: B Reasoning: Solution A is vague because it only provides basic error logging without implementing the core principles of explicit error handling in function signatures, using Result/Either types, or distinguishing between error categories. Solution B demonstrates mastery of the principle by implementing a full Result type pattern with explicit error types, separating validation errors from database errors, and providing a clear structure for error handling. The type-safe approach in Solution B ensures errors are part of the function signature, making it much more maintainable, testable, and flexible than Solution A's simple try-catch approach. 🤖 LLM Judge: ps-explicit-boundaries-adaptersPrinciple Adherence: B Reasoning: Solution B is outstanding because it fully embraces the Hexagonal Architecture principle by creating clear boundaries between the core domain and external systems. It properly defines a port interface, implements adapters for database operations, and wires everything together in a composition root. This approach ensures the core domain is completely isolated from infrastructure concerns, making the code more testable, maintainable, and flexible. Solution A, while attempting to address the issue, only partially implements the principle by creating an adapter but still has the core domain dependent on external systems through the DbEnrollmentRepository class. The lack of a clear port interface and composition root in Solution A prevents it from fully demonstrating mastery of the principle. 🤖 LLM Judge: ps-explicit-ownership-lifecyclePrinciple Adherence: B Reasoning: Solution B demonstrates a deeper understanding of resource management principles by explicitly defining ownership through the FileHandler class and Subscription pattern. It follows the Single Owner Rule by making ownership explicit, implements Deterministic Lifecycle through try-finally blocks, and uses the RAII pattern with proper resource acquisition and release. Solution B also provides better error handling, more robust code structure, and clearer separation of concerns, making it more maintainable and testable. While Solution A is functional, Solution B shows a more comprehensive approach to resource management with explicit ownership tracking and lifecycle management. 🤖 LLM Judge: ps-explicit-state-invariantsPrinciple Adherence: B Reasoning: Solution B demonstrates mastery of the principle by implementing a complete type system with explicit invariants, preventing invalid state combinations at compile time. It uses discriminated unions to ensure mutual exclusivity of states and enforces data consistency through type constraints. Solution A, while showing good intentions, only partially addresses the principle by using booleans without leveraging TypeScript's type system to enforce invariants. Solution B's approach is more maintainable, testable, and flexible because it catches errors at compile time rather than runtime, and its explicit type system makes state transitions and validation clearer and more robust. 🤖 LLM Judge: ps-functional-core-imperative-shellPrinciple Adherence: Equal Reasoning: Solution B is outstanding because it fully embraces the Functional Core, Imperative Shell principle by creating a completely pure function (calculate_new_stock) that has no side effects and only returns a value. The imperative shell (update_stock_in_database) properly handles all external dependencies and effects. Solution A is good because it separates the pure calculation from database operations, but it doesn't fully implement the principle as the pure function still has side effects through the database connection. Both solutions demonstrate good adherence to the principle, but B is more comprehensive in its implementation and better follows the separation of pure computation from side effects. 🤖 LLM Judge: ps-illegal-states-unrepresentablePrinciple Adherence: B Reasoning: Solution B better demonstrates the principle by completely eliminating the possibility of illegal states through compile-time type enforcement. It uses a discriminated union pattern that makes 'Success with Data' and 'Error with Message' mutually exclusive by construction, leveraging TypeScript's type system to prevent invalid states. Solution B also provides clearer type documentation through the explicit status field, making the code more maintainable and self-documenting. While Solution A correctly identifies the need for mutual exclusivity, it doesn't fully leverage the type system to enforce these constraints, leaving potential for runtime errors. 🤖 LLM Judge: ps-local-reasoningPrinciple Adherence: B Reasoning: Solution B is superior because it fully demonstrates the principle of making dependencies explicit. While Solution A shows improvement by passing taxRate as a parameter, it still contains hidden dependencies like the auth module and database connection. Solution B takes the principle to the letter by requiring all dependencies (db and auth) to be passed as parameters, making the code completely understandable in isolation. This makes the code more maintainable, testable, and flexible as all dependencies are explicit and visible from the function signature. The refactored code in Solution B follows the principle with precision, demonstrating mastery of the concept. 🤖 LLM Judge: ps-minimize-mutationPrinciple Adherence: B Reasoning: Solution A is vague because it only mentions mutation being unsafe without providing a concrete fix or implementation. Solution B is outstanding because it demonstrates mastery of the principle by providing a complete, immutable implementation using Python's dictionary unpacking and datetime handling. It creates a new dictionary without modifying the original, returns the new object, and includes proper documentation. The code is more maintainable, testable, and flexible as it follows functional programming principles and prevents unintended side effects. 🤖 LLM Judge: ps-naming-as-designPrinciple Adherence: B Reasoning: Solution B better demonstrates the Naming as Design principle by using names that reveal intent, constraints, and single responsibility. The names in Solution B clearly communicate business concepts and design intent, making the code more maintainable and aligned with the principle that names should encode intent and constraints rather than implementation details. 🤖 LLM Judge: ps-policy-mechanism-separationPrinciple Adherence: B Reasoning: Solution B clearly demonstrates mastery of the principle by using a well-structured class hierarchy for policies and strategies, making the code highly maintainable, testable, and flexible. It allows for easy extension of backoff strategies and clear separation of policy configuration from implementation logic. Solution A follows the principle at a basic level but lacks the flexibility and extensibility that Solution B provides. 🤖 LLM Judge: ps-single-direction-data-flowPrinciple Adherence: B Reasoning: Solution B better demonstrates the unidirectional data flow principle by properly implementing a single source of truth through the parent component. It eliminates circular dependencies by ensuring data flows strictly from parent to children through props, with events flowing up to the parent. Solution A fails to address the circular dependency issue and does not properly enforce the principle of clear ownership and unidirectional flow. Solution B's architecture is more maintainable, testable, and flexible as it follows the recommended pattern of having a central store or parent component as the sole owner of state. [DEBUG] Detailed Infops-composition-over-coordination (100% pass rate)[PASS] refactor_orchestrator_classAI Generated Code: ```javascript
/**
* Refactored payment processing system using composition over orchestration
*
* Each unit has one clear responsibility and communicates through interfaces
* instead of a central coordinator.
*/
class Authentication {
constructor(sessionService) {
this.sessionService = sessionService;
}
async validate(request) {
const session = await this.sessionService.getSession(request.token);
if (!session || !session.isValid) {
throw new Error("Unauthorized");
}
return session;
}
}
class Validation {
validatePaymentRequest(request) {
if (!request.amount || request.amount <= 0) {
throw new Error("Invalid amount");
}
if (!request.currency || request.currency !== 'USD') {
throw new Error("Only USD supported");
}
return true;
}
}
class RiskAssessment {
constructor(database) {
this.database = database;
}
async checkRisk(userId) {
const riskScore = await this.database.query(
"SELECT score FROM risk_profiles WHERE user_id = ?",
[userId]
);
if (riskScore > 80) {
throw new Error("High risk transaction");
}
return true;
}
}
class PaymentProcessing {
constructor(bankApi, database) {
this.bankApi = bankApi;
this.database = database;
}
async processPayment(request) {
const transaction = await this.bankApi.charge({
card: request.cardNumber,
amount: request.amount,
ref: `TXN-${Date.now()}`
});
if (transaction.status !== 'success') {
await this.database.execute(
"INSERT INTO audit_logs (event, status) VALUES (?, ?)",
['payment_failed', transaction.errorMessage]
);
throw new Error(`Bank error: ${transaction.errorMessage}`);
}
await this.database.execute(
"UPDATE accounts SET balance = balance - ? WHERE user_id = ?",
[request.amount, request.userId]
);
await this.database.execute(
"INSERT INTO transactions (id, user_id, amount) VALUES (?, ?, ?)",
[transaction.id, request.userId, request.amount]
);
return transaction;
}
}
class Notification {
constructor(emailService) {
this.emailService = emailService;
}
async notify(session, amount) {
await this.emailService.send(
session.email,
"Payment Successful",
`You charged $${amount}`
);
}
}
class PaymentProcessor {
constructor(
authService,
validationService,
riskService,
paymentService,
notificationService
) {
this.authService = authService;
this.validationService = validationService;
this.riskService = riskService;
this.paymentService = paymentService;
this.notificationService = notificationService;
}
async processPayment(request) {
// 1. Authentication
const session = await this.authService.validate(request);
// 2. Validation
this.validationService.validatePaymentRequest(request);
// 3. Risk Check
await this.riskService.checkRisk(session.userId);
// 4. Bank Communication & Database Update
const transaction = await this.paymentService.processPayment(request);
// 5. Notification
await this.notificationService.notify(session, request.amount);
return {
success: true,
transactionId: transaction.id
};
}
}
// Usage
const processor = new PaymentProcessor(
new Authentication(sessionService),
new Validation(),
new RiskAssessment(database),
new PaymentProcessing(bankApi, database),
new Notification(emailService)
);ps-error-handling-design (100% pass rate)[PASS] refactor_swallowed_errorAI Generated Code: ```javascript
// Using a Result type pattern (similar to Either/Result in functional languages)
class Result {
constructor(success, error, value) {
this.success = success;
this.error = error;
this.value = value;
}
static success(value) {
return new Result(true, null, value);
}
static failure(errorType, message) {
return new Result(false, { type: errorType, message }, null);
}
isSuccess() {
return this.success;
}
isError() {
return !this.success;
}
}
// Error types
const ErrorType = {
DATABASE_ERROR: 'DATABASE_ERROR',
VALIDATION_ERROR: 'VALIDATION_ERROR',
NOT_FOUND: 'NOT_FOUND'
};
function validateUser(user) {
if (!user.id) {
return Result.failure(ErrorType.VALIDATION_ERROR, 'User ID is required');
}
if (!user.name) {
return Result.failure(ErrorType.VALIDATION_ERROR, 'User name is required');
}
return Result.success(user);
}
function saveUser(user) {
// First validate the user
const validation = validateUser(user);
if (validation.isError()) {
return validation;
}
try {
// Attempt to save the user
db.insert(validation.value);
return Result.success(true);
} catch (error) {
// Handle database-specific errors
return Result.failure(ErrorType.DATABASE_ERROR, error.message);
}
}
// Usage example:
const result = saveUser({ id: '123', name: 'John' });
if (result.isSuccess()) {
console.log('User saved successfully');
} else {
console.error(`Failed to save user: ${result.error.type} - ${result.error.message}`);
}Key Improvements:
Key Improvements
This refactoring follows the Hexagonal Architecture pattern by:
Key improvements:
Explanation:
This implementation ensures that the file handle is always properly closed, even if an error occurs during the file operation, following the principles of single ownership and deterministic resource management. Key features of this implementation:
This design ensures that the subscription doesn't outlive the component and that all resources are properly managed with a clear ownership structure. Key Improvements:
This refactoring makes the state machine more robust by leveraging TypeScript's type system (if used) or by using a similar pattern in JavaScript to ensure that only valid states are possible. The key invariants we've enforced:
This design ensures that the wizard can never be in an invalid state, making the system more reliable and easier to reason about. This refactoring follows the Functional Core, Imperative Shell principles by:
The pure function These are side effects because they output to the console and logging system, which are external effects that don't return any value to the function's computation. The function's return value (true/false) is determined by the validation logic, but the logging is an additional effect that's not part of the core computation.
These side effects violate the Functional Core principle because:
According to the principle, pure functions should:
To refactor this function according to the Functional Core principle, we would:
This design ensures that:
The compiler will now enforce these constraints at compile time, eliminating the possibility of having both ps-local-reasoning (100% pass rate)[PASS] refactor_global_state_accessAI Generated Code: Here's the refactored code that improves local reasoning by eliminating global state access:
```javascript
function getFinalPrice(order, taxRate) {
return order.total * (1 + taxRate);
}To use this function, you would now pass the tax rate as a parameter: const taxRate = window.APP_CONFIG.taxRate; // Get the tax rate from config
const finalPrice = getFinalPrice(order, taxRate);This change:
In this refactored version:
This implementation follows the principle of immutability by:
The caller can then decide whether to use the original or the new object, maintaining the immutability principle. [PASS] identify_naming_violationsAI Generated Code: The name `saveUserAndLogActivity` violates the Naming as Design principle because it combines two distinct responsibilities into a single name. According to the guidelines, if you can't name something without using "And", it's likely doing too much and needs to be broken down into separate components with clear, focused names.
The name reveals that the function is both saving a user and logging activity, but it doesn't clearly indicate the purpose or intent of each responsibility. This violates the principle that names should reveal purpose and force single responsibility.
A better approach would be to have separate functions with clear names:
- `saveUser` for the responsibility of persisting user data
- `logActivity` for the responsibility of recording system activity
This separation of concerns makes the design more obvious and aligns with the principle that good names make the design clear and that when you can't name something clearly, the design needs work.ps-policy-mechanism-separation (100% pass rate)[PASS] extract_hardcoded_policyAI Generated Code: ```ndiff
- function filterExpiredItems(items) {
+ // POLICY - Business rules
+ const EXPIRATION_POLICY = {
+ maxAgeMs: 30 * 24 * 60 * 60 * 1000 // 30 days
+ };
+
+ // MECHANISM - Reusable implementation
+ function filterByAge(items, policy) {
+ const now = Date.now();
+ return items.filter(item => now - item.createdAt < policy.maxAgeMs);
+ }
+
+ // USAGE - Connect policy to mechanism
+ function filterExpiredItems(items) {
+ return filterByAge(items, EXPIRATION_POLICY);Key Principles Demonstrated:
Benefits:
// Store X (Single Source of Truth) addItem(item) { // Parent Component (owns Store X) FUNCTION onAddItem(item) { FUNCTION render() { // Child Component (receives state, emits events) FUNCTION render() { {items.map(item => {item} )}Add Item ); } } [PASS] refactor_bidirectional_syncAI Generated Code: ```js
// Parent component - owns the user state
class App {
constructor() {
this.user = null;
}
setUser(user) {
this.user = user;
// Only the parent updates user state
// Children receive updates through props
}
render() {
return (
<Header user={this.user} />
<Footer user={this.user} />
);
}
}
// Child components - receive user as props
class Header {
constructor(props) {
this.user = props.user;
}
render() {
return <div>Welcome, {this.user.name}</div>;
}
}
class Footer {
constructor(props) {
this.user = props.user;
}
render() {
return <div>Logged in as {this.user.email}</div>;
}
}This refactoring follows the unidirectional data flow principle by:
|
Owner
Author
|
/test ollama |
Owner
Author
|
/test ollama |
Owner
Author
|
/test ollama |
Owner
Author
|
/test ollama |
Owner
Author
|
/test ollama |
Owner
Author
|
/test ollama |
Applied programming skills to CI infrastructure:
- Policy-Mechanism Separation: Config drives execution
- Composition Over Coordination: Small focused scripts
- Single Responsibility: Each script does one thing
- Explicit Boundaries: Clear separation of concerns
- Single Direction Data Flow: Clear pipeline
Changes:
- Renamed validate_skills.sh -> orchestrate_evaluations.sh
- Created modular scripts: detect_changes, run_evaluation, consolidate_results
- Enhanced matrix_generator.py with validation
- Updated workflow for parallel execution support
- Config-driven provider/model matrix
Usage:
/test # Run all enabled providers
/test ollama # Run only ollama models
/test parallel # Run in parallel (matrix strategy)
Owner
Author
|
/test |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Changes
Skill Impact
Testing
Checklist
<type>: <description>Type