跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

update-optimal-blog

Refresh the data tables in optimal-blog.md from master.db. Checks the data for integrity problems FIRST, then runs the generator that picks per-language winners and splices every GEN-marked table, then reconciles the surrounding prose. Use after new experiment results land, or when the optimal-blog numbers are stale.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

查看安装方法

包含的文件(1)

  • SKILL.md5.7 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

Update optimal-blog.md

Overview

optimal-blog.md records what to run today, per language and task size. Its data tables are not hand-written — they are generated from master.db by the retort report optimal subcommand (code in src/retort/reporting/optimal.py) and live between <!-- GEN:<key> START/END --> markers. This skill is the safe procedure for refreshing them: check the data before you trust it, regenerate, verify the round-trip, then fix any prose whose numbers moved.

The order matters. master.db does not record the full stack/config (see the health gaps below), so a blind regenerate can silently publish wrong numbers. Always run the health check first and stop if it reports anything new.

Why per-language, not aggregates

A single cross-language reliability number is misleading — it blends a stack's strong languages with its weak ones (local Qwen passes Python/Go but fails Rust; Opus 4.8 dips on Java). The generator's centrepiece is the per-language success-rate matrix; the leading-stacks routine aggregate is explicitly labelled the least-useful number. Keep it that way — do not "promote" an aggregate back into the recommendation.

Steps

1. Health-check master.db FIRST (gate)

retort report optimal --health

Compare against the known, accepted gaps (already documented in the blog's Keeping this current section):

  • ⚠️ No sampling columns / max_context_tokens unpopulated — the qualified config is curated in FEATURED_STACKS, not filtered from data.
  • ⚠️ ~250 rows have a blank model (local provenance bug) — attributed by experiment slug.
  • ⚠️ experiment-11, experiment-29 not ingested.

You MUST STOP and surface to the user if the report shows anything beyond those:

  • "Unmapped model strings" — a new model appeared that no featured/legacy entry covers. Decide whether it's a new featured stack (add to FEATURED_STACKS) or legacy (add to KNOWN_NONFEATURED) before regenerating. Publishing without deciding would drop it silently.
  • New experiment dirs not in master.db — results exist on disk but aren't ingested; the refresh would omit them. Re-ingest first, or note the omission to the user.
  • A jump in the blank-model count — the harness may have regressed; a run recording no model is invisible to the tables. (The fix landed in src/retort/playpen/runner.py stack_metadata(); if new blanks appear, that path is being bypassed.)

2. Regenerate the tables

retort report optimal --write optimal-blog.md

This splices every GEN:* block (leading stacks, per-language matrix, per-language winners, prompt method). It only touches text between markers.

3. Verify the round-trip

retort report optimal --write optimal-blog.md   # run twice
git diff --stat optimal-blog.md

A second --write MUST produce no further change — the tables are idempotent. If git diff shows table cells changed, that's the real new data; if it shows nothing, the blog was already current.

4. Reconcile the prose

The generator owns the tables, not the sentences around them. After a refresh, read the diff and fix any prose that quotes a number that moved:

  • The bullets under Leading stacks (e.g. "Opus 4.8 ~0.59 on hard").
  • The per-language recommendation table (the curated one with the prompt/testing column) and its †/‡ footnotes — reconcile its picks against the generated matrix and winner table. A cell that flipped qualified↔unqualified (e.g. a language gaining local support) changes the recommendation.
  • The decision procedure list.
  • The language split sentence if a language moved between local and cloud.

You MUST NOT edit numbers inside the GEN markers by hand — re-run the generator instead.

5. Report

Tell the user: which table cells changed, any prose you reconciled, and — if step 1 found anything — what you stopped on. If nothing changed, say the blog was already current.

Constraints Summary

  • You MUST run --health and clear it against the known gaps before --write.
  • You MUST NOT hand-edit between GEN:* markers; the generator is the source of truth.
  • You MUST NOT introduce or re-elevate a cross-language aggregate as a recommendation — per-language success rates are the point.
  • You MUST verify idempotency (step 3) before considering the update done.
  • A new model string or un-ingested experiment is a STOP-and-ask, not a silent skip.

Troubleshooting

--health reports an unmapped model — add it to FEATURED_STACKS (with a models list and short column name) if it should appear in the blog, or to KNOWN_NONFEATURED if it's legacy/a serving variant. Re-run health until only the accepted gaps remain.

Blank-model count grew — the harness stopped recording model for some runs. Check stack_metadata() is still called by every runner's provision() (local_runner, metaharness_runner, docker_runner); a new runner or a bypass would reintroduce the original bug. Do not paper over it in the generator.

A local language's number looks too low — confirm the curated selection in FEATURED_STACKS still points at the tuned-config experiments, not an all-experiment average (which includes early bad-config runs and understates the tuned reality).

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

评论

无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。

还没有评论。来写第一条吧。

提交后会立即公开。请勿填写邮箱、电话等个人信息。URL 最多 2 个。

0 / 1000 字

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

同一仓库的技能

beads

免费

Use when working in a repository that uses bd or Beads for durable project task tracking, issue dependencies, blocker management, multi-session handoff, or shared work memory. Trigger when the user asks to find ready work, claim or close tasks, create follow-up work, inspect blockers, recover project context, or choose between local planning and persistent project tracking.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

adrianco/retort2102026年10月20日 更新

Compare evaluated runs in a retort experiment along factor dimensions. Surfaces effects of each factor, aggregates across replicates, and highlights cells that diverge qualitatively — complementing (not replacing) retort's ANOVA analysis.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

adrianco/retort2102026年10月18日 更新

Determine the TRUE cause of a failed retort run before attributing it. Ground-truth every failure (run its tests, read its agent logs, inspect its workspace) and classify it as an infrastructure false-fail, a genuine model miss, or an environment issue — never trust the gate verdict or a log signature alone. Use whenever a run is recorded failed (test_coverage=0 / gate fail), a pass rate looks low, or you're deciding whether a "failure" is real before reporting or proceeding.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

adrianco/retort2102026年10月18日 更新

Evaluate a single retort experiment run. Score the generated code against the task's TASK.md requirements, run its build and tests, compute metrics, and emit a structured evaluation report plus a machine-readable findings file.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

adrianco/retort2102026年10月18日 更新

Aggregate a retort run's findings.jsonl into a machine-readable assessment.json summary with severity counts, penalty score, requirement coverage, and top findings.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

adrianco/retort2102026年10月18日 更新

Summarize the architecture of code generated by a single retort run. Produces module-level structure, interfaces, and control flow in a form suitable for cross-run comparison — not a full codebase-summary.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

adrianco/retort2102026年10月18日 更新

查看 adrianco 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题