Proposal: Add a 16-problem RAG failure checklist for debugging GPT-based knowledge from crawled sites

Hi gpt-crawler team,

I am the author of **WFGY ProblemMap**, an open-source **16-problem failure map for RAG and LLM pipelines**. It was originally developed to diagnose issues in production RAG stacks where the retrieval layer is built from crawled or ingested content.

The same map has been adopted in other projects:

- **RAGFlow** – uses it as the official RAG failure modes checklist in their docs.
- **LlamaIndex** – integrates the map into their RAG troubleshooting documentation.
- **ToolUniverse (Harvard MIMS Lab)** – wraps it as a triage tool for incident diagnostics.
- It is also referenced by curated lists such as *Awesome LLM Apps* and *Awesome-AITools*.

Map entry point (MIT license):

- https://github.com/onestardao/WFGY/blob/main/ProblemMap/README.md

### Why this matters for gpt-crawler users

Many users of gpt-crawler will:

1. Crawl a site to generate a knowledge file.
2. Upload it as the basis for a custom GPT or RAG system.
3. Later discover that certain questions fail, or that answers “feel wrong” even though the content exists in the crawl.

In practice, these failures often fall into a small set of RAG patterns: missing sections, bad chunk boundaries, wrong metadata, embedding / index configuration issues, etc. The ProblemMap encodes 16 such patterns and provides acceptance targets and fix ideas.

### Suggested docs addition

I would like to propose adding a small **“Troubleshooting retrieval quality (16-problem RAG checklist)”** section to the repo’s README or docs that:

1. Links to the WFGY ProblemMap poster and README.
2. Explains that when a user gets a bad answer from their custom GPT, they can:
- Collect the question, the answer, and the relevant crawled text / chunks.
- Feed them, together with the poster, into a strong LLM and ask which of the 16 problems is occurring.
3. Encourages using the ProblemMap numbers as a vocabulary when discussing issues (e.g., “this looks like a Problem 3 + Problem 7 case”).

This is just an optional diagnostic guide; it does not change the crawler itself. But it can help users systematically debug and improve retrieval quality from their crawled knowledge files.

If this is of interest, I can send a concrete Markdown snippet tailored to your docs.

Thanks for your time.

Start with the repository README or docs and review the linked WFGY ProblemMap README as the proposed reference. Add a small troubleshooting section covering the 16-problem checklist, its links, and the suggested diagnostic workflow; done means users can find and follow the retrieval-quality guidance.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.