adding purpose-classifier data
This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1,148 @@
|
||||
{"prompt": "need a design for group calls. currently p2p mesh which dies above 4 people. sfu vs mcu, self hosted vs a vendor, and what our bandwidth and cpu budget is per participant on a laptop. write it up with a recommendation", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.9, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "sfu integration: publish one stream up, subscribe to n down, simulcast three layers, and drop the top layer when cpu is high", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.9, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "call grid layout — speaker view and gallery, active speaker border, and it must reflow without a jarring jump when someone joins", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "the mute button says 'Mute' when you're already muted", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.2, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "our peer connection setup is duplicated for the 1:1 path and the group path with subtly different ice config. one implementation, same connection behavior in both modes", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "audio drops for one participant after about 8 minutes, every time, and reconnecting fixes it. only on wifi", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.9, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "explain our ice candidate gathering and whether we're actually using the turn server or falling back to it silently", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "write up the network requirements doc for customers — ports, the turn fallback, and the bandwidth per participant at each quality", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "screen share with audio, tab or window or full screen, and a clear indicator to the sharer that they're sharing", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "screen share picks the wrong monitor on multi-display macs", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "call recording — server side composite, uploaded when the call ends, with the participants' consent recorded", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "the recording indicator only shows for the person who started it", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "phoenix: presence tracking for the call room, with a channel per room and a clean leave on socket close", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "our genservers hold state that should be in ets and it's why a crash loses the room. rework it, same behavior when nothing crashes", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "the channel timeout is 60s and mobile clients get dropped when the app backgrounds", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "ghost participants stay in the presence list after they close the tab, sometimes for minutes", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "could you explain how our supervision tree handles a room process crashing — do the clients reconnect and rejoin automatically", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "docs for the realtime channel api — the events, their payloads, and the reconnect protocol clients must implement", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "plan how we scale the phoenix layer past one node — distributed presence, pubsub across nodes, and sticky-ish routing", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.9, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "browser extension: content script that highlights our resource ids on any page and shows a hover card with the status", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "manifest v2 to v3 migration for the extension, background page to service worker, and the webRequest bits that no longer exist", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "the extension requests <all_urls> and we only need two domains", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.2, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "extension loses its auth token whenever chrome suspends the service worker, users have to re-login daily", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "review the extension's permissions and message passing for anything a malicious page could exploit", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "im back, whats the state of things", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.4, "slice": "vague-eval", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "so ive been putting off the chat feature but sales keeps promising it. i want the plan: message storage, ordering, read receipts, typing indicators, attachments, and search. and it has to work in the mobile apps offline. whats the smallest thing we can ship that we wont have to throw away", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.9, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "message storage with per-conversation ordering, server-assigned sequence numbers, and a client-generated id for dedupe on retry", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "message list: bubbles, day separators, tail grouping for consecutive messages from one person, and it scrolls to the right place on open", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "timestamps show seconds, drop to minutes", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.1, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "we render messages in three places — the chat, the search results and the notification preview — each parsing markdown differently. one renderer", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "messages sometimes appear twice for the sender and once for everyone else", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "does our read receipt update leak that a user read a message in a conversation they were later removed from", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "chat api docs: sending, the sequence number contract, pagination backwards through history, and the delivery semantics", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "typing indicators over the existing channel, throttled, and they should stop on send or after 5s of no keystrokes", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "the typing indicator says 'X is typing' for people who left the conversation", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "attachments in chat: upload with a progress bubble, image previews inline, and a retry on the failed ones", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "attachment uploads succeed but the message never posts if the user navigates away", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "plan the message search — per-conversation and global, respecting permissions, and it can't scan the whole table", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "explain how a message's permissions are evaluated at read time versus indexed at write time, from the code", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "user help page for chat: mentions, formatting, editing and deleting rules, and what other people see when you edit", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.4, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "message editing with an edit history, a 15 minute window, and an 'edited' marker", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "the edit window is enforced client side only", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "our conversation membership checks are done in the resolver, the channel and the push sender separately, and one of them is wrong. one check", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "design the mention and notification rules for chat, then implement the mention parser", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": "backendImpl", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "work out why messages duplicate and then update the client integration docs", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": "writing", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "keep at it pls", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "vague-eval", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "pasting the chrome devtools output, would you mind having a look:\n\nUncaught (in promise) DOMException: Failed to execute 'setRemoteDescription' on 'RTCPeerConnection': Failed to set remote answer sdp: Called in wrong state: stable\n at negotiate (call-session.js:212:22)\n at RTCPeerConnection.<anonymous> (call-session.js:188:9)\n\ncall-session.js:241 [call] renegotiation requested while state=have-local-offer, queuing\ncall-session.js:241 [call] renegotiation requested while state=have-local-offer, queuing\ncall-session.js:241 [call] renegotiation requested while state=have-local-offer, queuing\ncall-session.js:266 [call] ice connection state: disconnected\ncall-session.js:266 [call] ice connection state: failed\n\nthis happens when two people turn their camera on at the same moment. i think its a glare/renegotiation thing but i dont know the right pattern", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "implement perfect negotiation properly in the call session — polite/impolite peer, offer collision handling, and a queue that doesn't grow forever", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.9, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "our signalling messages are untyped objects with a `type` string checked in a switch. define the message types properly, same wire format", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "connection quality indicator: bars from the webrtc stats, and a 'poor connection' toast when it drops for 5+ seconds", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "the stats polling interval is 100ms which is itself a cpu problem", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.2, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "read our stats collection and tell me which of the numbers we show are actually meaningful vs decorative", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "signalling protocol doc — message types, the state machine, and what a client must do on reconnect mid-call", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "plan the call quality analytics — what we log per call, how we detect a bad call after the fact, and the dashboard we'd want", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "post-call stats upload: aggregate the webrtc stats client side and send one summary, no per-second dump", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "call quality dashboard: distribution of mos-ish scores, worst calls list, and a breakdown by region and browser", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "the region field is null for 40% of calls", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "turn server deployment in three regions with credentials that rotate hourly and no long-lived shared secret in the client", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "the turn credentials are static and checked into the repo", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.4, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "assess whether someone could use our turn servers as an open relay, and what it would cost us", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "ops doc for the turn fleet: capacity per node, how to tell if it's saturated, and the scaling procedure", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "gostaria de um plano para migrar nosso websocket caseiro para Phoenix Channels sem derrubar os clientes atuais", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "pt"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "ecto migration adding a composite unique index on messages (conversation_id, client_id) to enforce dedupe at the db level", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "our ecto queries preload associations inconsistently, some with joins some with separate queries. standardize, and the returned data must be identical", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "the pool_size in prod config is 10 with 40 concurrent liveviews", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.2, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "liveview reconnects wipe the form the user was filling in", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "liveview based admin page for the room list with live updating counts and a kick-participant action", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "explain what happens to a liveview's assigns across a reconnect and which of ours will misbehave", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "write the elixir side of our contributing guide — the umbrella layout, how to run the tests, and the formatting rules", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.4, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "que sigue", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "vague-eval", "lang": "es"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "we've got a browser extension, a vscode extension and a cli that all authenticate slightly differently and share nothing. i want the plan for one auth story across all three — device flow, token storage per platform, and how a user sees their connected tools", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "device authorization flow endpoints — code issuance, polling with the right error codes, and expiry, per the rfc", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "the device code page: big code, copy button, and clear instructions that don't assume the user knows what a device code is", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.4, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "the device code is 4 digits, that's not enough entropy", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "our three clients each implement token refresh with their own retry logic. one shared library per language we support, same refresh timing", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "the vscode extension gets logged out whenever the window reloads, but only on windows", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "check how each client stores its token and tell me which one is the weakest", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "docs for the device flow — the endpoints, the polling interval rules, and a worked example for a cli author", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "connected apps page: list of authorized clients with last used, scopes, and a revoke per entry", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "revoking a client's access doesn't stop its in-flight refresh token", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "scoped tokens — a token can be limited to read-only or to one project, enforced server side", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "the scope list in the consent screen shows internal scope names like 'proj:rw'", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.2, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "plan the oauth app story for third parties — registration, review, redirect uri rules, and rate limits per app", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "look at our redirect uri validation, i want to know if a wildcard or a fragment could be abused", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "oauth app developer docs: registering, the flows we support, scope reference, and the security requirements we enforce", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "our consent screen is rendered by two different templates depending on the flow and they show different scope lists. one template, same information", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "vscode extension: a tree view of our resources with lazy children, and inline actions on hover", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "the extension activates on startup for everyone, make it activate on our commands only", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "language server for our config format — diagnostics, completion from the schema, and go-to-definition for references", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.9, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "completion in the editor is 800ms behind typing on a large file", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "explain how our language server caches parses and whether an edit invalidates more than it needs to", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "extension readme and marketplace description, with a gif placeholder and the three features people care about", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "plan how we ship the language server to all the editors — lsp, but the packaging and update story per editor", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "our parser is used by the cli, the server and the language server, each with a vendored copy that's drifted. one package, and validate that all three still accept the same files", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "the last one", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "vague-eval", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "i need the plan for our public roadmap and changelog infrastructure. sounds trivial but: it needs to pull from our issue tracker, have a public voting thing, and the changelog needs to be in the app as well as on the site. and marketing wants to edit copy without a deploy", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "changelog service backed by markdown in a repo, with a build step producing json the app consumes, and per-entry audience tags", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "in-app changelog panel with an unread indicator, and it should only count entries relevant to the user's plan", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "the unread dot never clears", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "write the last three months of changelog entries from the merged PRs, split by audience", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "public roadmap page: three columns, vote counts, and a filter by area. votes need to be per-account not per-visit", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "vote counts jump around because we're counting per visit not per account", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "our markdown rendering happens in four places with different plugin sets, so the same entry looks different in each. one renderer", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "review the public roadmap for anything that leaks internal customer names from the issue titles", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "feedback widget: a small form, screenshot attach, and it should post to our tracker with the user's context attached", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "the widget covers the chat launcher on mobile", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.2, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "plan how we triage inbound feedback at volume without it rotting in a queue", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "feedback submissions from the widget lose the screenshot about a third of the time", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "explain what user context we attach to a feedback submission — i want to be sure we're not sending anything we shouldn't", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "privacy note for the feedback widget, in plain language, explaining what we collect when you submit", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "screenshot capture in the widget via the display capture api with a redaction tool for sensitive fields", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "moving on", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "vague-eval", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "would you mind putting together the plan for our status page and incident comms? we currently post in a slack channel and email people manually. i want automated component status from our monitoring, subscriber notifications, and a template-driven update flow so an on-call engineer isn't writing prose at 3am", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "component status derived from our slo burn rates, with a manual override that an engineer can set and that expires", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "public status page: components with their state, the 90 day history strip, and active incidents at the top", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "the status page is served from the same cluster it reports on", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.4, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "subscriber notifications by email and webhook, per component, with a digest option and a confirmed opt-in", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "subscribers get notified for components they didn't subscribe to", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "our notification sending for status updates duplicates the main email service's logic including its suppression list handling. use the shared service", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "incident update templates for the four phases, with the placeholders an engineer fills, plus guidance on tone", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.4, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "tell me what our status page would show right now if the database were down, based on the code not the intent", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "incident management ui for the on-call: create, pick components, post an update from a template, and resolve", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "the resolve button doesn't clear the component states", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "plan the uptime reporting we'd publish — how we compute it, what counts as downtime, and how it maps to the sla credits", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "the monthly uptime number disagrees with our internal slo dashboard by half a percent", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "explain how our uptime calculation treats a partial outage affecting 5% of customers", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "sla document with the uptime commitment, the exclusions, how credits are calculated and claimed", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "uptime computation job producing monthly numbers per component, from the historical status records", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "design the incident automation then implement the slo burn rate watcher", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": "backendImpl", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "check the status page code and tidy up the duplication you find", "purpose": "review", "secondary": "refactor", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "eh, next", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "vague-eval", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "here's what support pasted into the channel, i think its a small config thing but i want to be sure:\n\n> customer (Mercator Labs, enterprise) says the ip allowlist isn't working. they added\n> 203.0.113.0/24 and their requests from 203.0.113.44 are still rejected with\n> {\"error\":\"ip_not_allowed\"}. they've confirmed the source ip with our /whoami endpoint\n> which returns 203.0.113.44.\n>\n> i checked their org settings and the allowlist is saved correctly. tried it myself with\n> a proxy from a listed ip and got the same rejection.\n>\n> they're threatening to escalate, they've had this open 4 days", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "ip allowlist evaluation using the correct client ip from the proxy chain, with the trusted proxy list configured explicitly", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "we read the client ip from three different places in the code, one of which is the raw remote addr behind the lb. one helper", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "allowlist settings ui showing the user's current ip with an 'add this' button, and a warning if they're about to lock themselves out", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "the allowlist input accepts a bare ip but not a /32", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.2, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "review the allowlist enforcement — does it cover the api, the ui, the webhooks-in, and the sso callback, or just the api", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "admin docs for ip allowlisting: what it covers, what it doesn't, ipv6, and the recovery path when you lock yourself out", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "plan the network security features enterprise keeps asking for — ip allowlist, private connectivity, and egress from a fixed ip", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "fixed egress ips for our outbound webhooks and api calls, documented and stable, per region", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "our egress ip list in the docs is out of date and customers' firewalls are blocking us", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "ipv6 addresses in the allowlist match nothing, silently", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "audit log entries for allowlist changes, and a notification to the other admins when one changes", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "settings page section for network security with the three features grouped and their enterprise-plan gating clear", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "explain how the plan gating for enterprise features is enforced — ui only or server side too", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "security whitepaper section on network controls, aimed at a customer's security reviewer", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "our plan-gating checks are string comparisons against plan names in 60 places. move to a capability check, same gating for every existing plan", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
{"prompt": "ok whats left then", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.4, "slice": "vague-eval", "lang": "en"}
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user