NASA-IMPACT / NASA-IMPACT/akd-core

Co-Design Self Review Testing (Backlog Findings)

Open
#549 0 comments 0 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub

Nobody has claimed this yet.

Dominant language
Jupyter Notebook
Stars
4
Forks
0
PR merge metrics
No merged PRs in 30d

Description

  1. A vague requirement went undetected while a contradiction in the same workspace was caught — NON-CRITICAL

Uploaded workspace, edited to introduce defects. Two defects were added to the completed Astro Data Search design:

output.md — a "Recommended dataset" section telling the agent to name the single best choice, which contradicts scope.md and guardrails/no-best-dataset-metadata-proxy.md
scope.md — a Performance section reading "Searches should complete quickly so the researcher is not left waiting", with no threshold or number
Running /self-review all caught the "best dataset" contradiction — quoted both sides with line numbers and graded it [critical] — but did not flag the "complete quickly" statement at all, despite covering the whole workspace and quoting scope.md for other purposes.

Steps: append an unquantified requirement to scope.md, run /self-review all, check whether it appears under Unclear.

Also seen in the walkthrough interview workspace. A success criterion was given as "Turnaround should be fast enough that it doesn't hold up a demonstration". The automatic end-of-stage review did not flag it; the manual /self-review immediately afterwards did, as Unclear [nice-to-have].

  1. Review returns a permission error and nothing else — NON-CRITICAL

/self-review returns only Permission denied for read on 'guardrails/no-secrets-or-credentials.md': Protect sensitive files. No review is produced. Re-sending the command generates the review normally.

Steps: upload project artifact files (one with "secret" in the filename) → new chat → /self-review as the first message → error → re-send the command, review is generated.

Marked non-critical: reaching this requires uploading a prepared workspace, which is a developer path rather than something an end user would do.

Image

Contributor guide

Open the contributing guide

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

Research direction

Start by reproducing both cases with the /self-review command: an unquantified requirement in scope.md and a workspace containing guardrails/no-secrets-or-credentials.md. Trace the self-review entry point and review-generation flow, then verify that unclear requirements are reported and the initial permission error still produces a review or recovers consistently.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Assessment

Domain
testing
Issue type
Bug
Difficulty
4/5
Estimated time
3-5 days
Activity status
Active
Clarity
Mostly clear
Newbie friendliness
52/100

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.