NASA-IMPACT / NASA-IMPACT/akd-core
Co-Design Self Review Testing (Backlog Findings)
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Jupyter Notebook
- Stars
- 4
- Forks
- 0
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
- 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].
- 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.
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- 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