{"prompt": "our shared-space colocation, which drifts between headsets. is the approach sound or do we need something else?\n\n1. host creates a cloud anchor at session start and shares its id\n2. each client resolves the anchor once and stores the resulting pose\n3. all shared content is positioned relative to that stored pose\n4. each client's own tracking updates are applied on top of it\n5. there is no periodic re-resolution and no drift correction between clients\n6. relocalisation after tracking loss re-anchors to the client's own map, not the shared one\n\nusers stand around a physical table and expect virtual objects to stay on it for everyone", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.85, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "the same value-date logic exists in four places with three different answers:\n\n// ValueDate.java\nreturn postedAt.atZone(ZoneOffset.UTC).toLocalDate();\n\n// settlement/BatchRunner.java\nreturn LocalDate.ofInstant(postedAt, ZoneId.of(centre.timezone()));\n\n// reconciliation/Matcher.java\nreturn postedAt.atZone(ZoneId.of(\"Europe/Madrid\")).toLocalDate();   // hardcoded, one centre\n\n-- reports/daily_postings.sql\nDATE(posted_at AT TIME ZONE 'UTC')\n\nthe core banking system uses the booking centre's local date with a 23:00 cutover, which none of these implements", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "mail delivery policy — concurrency, backoff, deferral limits — is inline in the SMTP worker, which is why one destination can starve every worker. extract it into something testable and configurable per destination, keeping today's behaviour as the default so we can change it deliberately rather than accidentally i'm not attached to the current approach if there's an obviously better one.", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "statement footer still says 2025", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.1, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "our transactional email API, used by six internal teams, documented in a wiki page from 2023:\n\nPOST /v1/send\n  body: { to, from, subject, template_id, variables, headers?, send_at?, pool? }\n  pool defaults to \"transactional\"; the other pools are \"marketing\" and \"bulk\", and choosing wrong affects deliverability for everyone\n  send_at more than 7 days out is silently clamped to 7 days\n  a template variable that is missing renders as an empty string rather than failing\n  suppression list is checked at send time, not at enqueue time, so a scheduled send may be suppressed later\n  the response is 202 with a message id; delivery status arrives on a webhook or via GET /v1/messages/{id}\n  rate limits are per pool per hour and are not published anywhere\n\nwrite the reference; the pool choice and the silent variable behaviour are what teams get wrong", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.65, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "the tinting code creates a material instance per object, which is our entire draw-call problem:\n\nvoid OnHoverEnter(GameObject go) {\n    var r = go.GetComponent<Renderer>();\n    r.material.color = hoverColor;          // instantiates the material\n}\n\nvoid OnHoverExit(GameObject go) {\n    var r = go.GetComponent<Renderer>();\n    r.material.color = originalColor;       // and again\n}\n\nvoid Place(GameObject prefab, Pose pose) {\n    var go = Instantiate(prefab, pose.position, pose.rotation);\n    go.GetComponent<Renderer>().material.SetFloat(\"_Metallic\", 0.2f);   // and again\n}\n\nsame visual result required, but batching has to survive", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "mail operations console is a grafana dashboard and a terminal, which is why incidents take longer than they should. build the deliverability view to the spec, including the verbatim SMTP responses per destination, and make it usable on a phone because that's where it gets opened context if it helps: this has been open since before i joined the team.", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "a customer's statement shows a transaction twice and support can't explain it:\n\nledger entries for account 4471, 2026-07-28:\n  entry 881204  DEBIT  120.00  ref=CARD-9021  posted_at=14:02:14  source=card_network\n  entry 881207  DEBIT  120.00  ref=CARD-9021  posted_at=14:02:19  source=card_network\n  entry 881209  CREDIT 120.00  ref=CARD-9021  posted_at=14:31:02  source=reversal\n\nthe card network sent the authorisation twice with the same reference, five seconds apart, and our idempotency check is on (ref, amount, posted_date) with posted_date derived from posted_at in local time", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "one value-date implementation, four callers", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "what makes a posting a duplicate?", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "statement rendering exists three times — PDF, HTML and CSV — each computing the running balance independently and one of them rounding negatives differently. consolidate onto one renderer with format-specific output, with the PDF as the reference because it's the regulated artefact, and diff a month of statements to prove nothing moved whatever you find, write it somewhere the next person will actually look.", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.75, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "batch fetch size down to 5000", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.25, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "instructor panel should follow on a tether", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.45, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "settlement thing", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "vague-eval", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "ledger team loses two engineers in september and the code they own includes the settlement batch, the value-date logic and the core banking adapter. i'd like a plan for that departure specifically: what has to be written down, what should be simplified before they go, and what we accept will slow down afterwards", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "i'd like an honest read of whether our DKIM alignment is strict enough to reject mail from the old selector, and if it is, the fix — ideally without unpublishing a key that some senders still use", "purpose": "review", "secondary": "quickFix", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "AR content is authored by instructors in unity and shipped in the app binary, which is a release per lesson", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "one money type across the ledger", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.65, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "a customer's statement shows the same card transaction twice for half an hour before a reversal nets it out, and our idempotency check apparently didn't catch a repeat five seconds apart. work out exactly which part of the check let it through before we change anything, because the fix depends on whether it was the reference or the date", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.85, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "what does the core banking system do with a message we resend after a timeout", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "hand tracking loses the pinch gesture after a few minutes and only on device:\n\n[XR] Hand tracking subsystem started, confidence high\n[XR] Frame 41882: left hand lost (confidence low), reacquired in 3 frames\n[App] PinchDetector: state=Open → Pinching (thumb-index 0.018m)\n[App] PinchDetector: state=Pinching → Open (thumb-index 0.031m)\n[App] PinchDetector: state=Open → Pinching (thumb-index 0.019m)\n[XR] Frame 88214: hand joints returning stale poses (timestamp unchanged for 12 frames)\n[App] PinchDetector: no state change for 40 seconds\n\nthe detector caches the last joint poses and compares against them, so stale poses look like a perfectly steady hand", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "deliverability to one provider collapsed and their postmaster tools show this:\n\nspam rate: 0.02% → 0.41% (threshold 0.30%)\ndomain reputation: high → low\nauthenticated traffic: 100%\nencrypted traffic: 100%\nIP reputation: high\ntop feedback loop complaints: \"password reset\" 88%, \"transaction alert\" 9%\n\nwe started sending password reset emails from the same domain and IP pool as marketing three weeks ago\n\nour own numbers for the same period:\n  transactional volume: 1.2M/day (unchanged)\n  marketing volume: 0 → 900k/day (campaign started three weeks ago)\n  password reset volume: 41k/day (moved onto this pool three weeks ago)\n  unsubscribe rate on marketing: 2.1%\n  bounce rate overall: 0.4% → 1.9%\n\nsending IPs: 4, shared across all three streams, no subdomain separation, one DKIM selector for everything", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "changelog for the AR app's 3.1 release:\n\n41c9e0b fix(hands): pinch detection now ignores stale joint poses\n88f21c0 feat(colocation): shared anchors re-resolve every 30 seconds with drift correction\nc0aa774 perf(render): objects share materials via property blocks, draw calls down from 1,482 to 210\n2e91b45 fix(anchors): relocalisation re-anchors to the shared map rather than the local one\naa30f19 feat(ui): hand menu can be summoned with either hand\n9c1d004 chore: minimum OS is now visionOS 2.2 and Android XR 1.1\n4410bb7 fix(audio): spatial audio no longer resets on app resume\nb77e910 feat(session): a session survives a headset being removed for up to 5 minutes\n\nour users are enterprise training teams; two of these change behaviour their instructors have built lessons around", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "design spec for the AR training session's instructor panel, unity:\n\nInstructor panel (world-anchored, 0.6m wide, follows on a lazy tether)\n- Participant list: name, headset battery, tracking quality, current step. Rows 6cm tall, readable at 1.5m.\n- Tracking quality uses shape as well as colour — a filled, half or empty ring — because instructors are often colour-blind and always in a hurry.\n- Step control: previous / next / jump, with a confirmation for jump because it moves everyone.\n- A \"recentre everyone\" action that re-resolves the shared anchor and reports which headsets succeeded.\n- Alerts appear as a strip along the top: a participant losing tracking for more than 5 seconds, or falling behind by more than one step.\n- The panel must be summonable from either hand and dismissible with a glance away for 3 seconds.\n- Text must remain legible while the instructor is walking, which means no thin weights and no animation on the numbers.", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "per-destination concurrency cap of 8", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.35, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "queue age histogram on the console", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.4, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "delivery policy out of the SMTP code", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "javadoc for the posting idempotency rule", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.4, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "is the pinch threshold distance-dependent?", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "why do anchors drift between headsets?", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "accruals are a cent out mid-month", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "email reputation has to recover before the statement run or a million statements land in spam, and the underlying cause is that transactional, notification and marketing mail share a domain and an IP pool. work through the separation options with the warm-up period as the awkward part, and tell me what we do about the statement run that falls in the middle of it", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.85, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "AnchorManager has grown to own resolution, tracking, persistence, relocalisation and debug drawing, and it's the class the drift fix has to touch. before anyone starts i'd like agreement on the split — what the pieces are, which one the fix lives in, and whether we do the split first or the fix first given the demo date", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "an auditor has asked six questions about idempotency, partial batches, adjustments, value dates, reconciliation and retention, and several of our honest answers are uncomfortable. write the controls document from the code and the runbooks, and mark clearly the ones we cannot currently substantiate rather than writing something defensible-sounding we've been burned by guessing at this before, so evidence over instinct please.", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "internal hand-tracking guide doesn't exist, and every developer rediscovers that TryGetJoint returns stale poses instead of failing. write the guide for internal developers covering the API's real behaviour, the confidence values nobody checks, and the frame-rate dependence of our thresholds keep it concrete — file names and line numbers are more use than principles here.", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.65, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "nobody can tell me whether our batch can commit half a transfer — the debit without the credit — given that it commits every thousand records with postings in file order rather than by transfer. read the runner and the input generation together and tell me whether that's possible, and whether it happened on the twenty-ninth", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.9, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "we have three ways to schedule work in the ledger service: quartz, a database poller and a cron container", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "suppression list is checked at send time, so a scheduled statement can go to an unsubscribed address", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.4, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "instructor panel", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "vague-eval", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "settlement batch can leave a partial day applied and our recovery is a script someone writes at four in the morning, which the operational risk register has now noticed. i'd like the options for making it restartable worked through — a checkpoint table, record-level idempotency, or regenerating a stable input file — with the month-end runtime and the eight o'clock cutover as the constraints that actually decide it", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.9, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "i'd like to understand what happens to an anchor when a headset relocalises after tracking loss", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.75, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "batch needs a checkpoint table so a failed run can resume rather than being reconstructed by hand", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.75, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "AR app carries two input abstractions, ours and the XR toolkit's, and new code picks whichever the author saw first. move everything onto the toolkit's, and confirm whether our own layer is doing anything the toolkit doesn't before we delete it tell me if this is the wrong shape entirely, i won't be offended.", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": "review", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.65, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "ledger entries table has an updated_at column that three jobs quietly set, on a table that is supposed to be immutable. stop the writes, and tell me whether any of those three jobs was relying on it for something we'd miss nobody has trusted this code for about a year, which is part of the problem.", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": "review", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "overnight settlement aborted and left the batch half-applied, which has never happened before:\n\nSEVERE [batch-worker-3] com.lumenbank.settlement.BatchRunner - batch SETTLE-20260729 failed at record 41882 of 88214\njava.sql.BatchUpdateException: ORA-00060: deadlock detected while waiting for resource\n\tat oracle.jdbc.driver.OraclePreparedStatement.executeLargeBatch(OraclePreparedStatement.java:10032)\n\tat com.lumenbank.settlement.PostingDao.applyBatch(PostingDao.java:212)\n\tat com.lumenbank.settlement.BatchRunner.run(BatchRunner.java:88)\nWARNING [batch-worker-3] rollback failed: connection closed\nSEVERE [batch-worker-3] batch marked FAILED, 41,881 postings committed, 46,333 not applied\n\nthe runner commits every 1,000 records and has no restart-from-checkpoint path", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.85, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "so the headset drops to 45fps whenever a user looks at the assembly area:\n\nUnity Profiler (Quest 3, 10s):\n  PlayerLoop                       22.1ms\n    Camera.Render                  14.8ms\n      Drawing (opaque)             9.2ms   batches: 1,482  setpass: 412\n      Shadows                      3.1ms\n    Update.ScriptRunBehaviourUpdate 4.2ms\n      AnchorManager.Update         2.9ms   (GC.Alloc 812 KB)\n    PostLateUpdate.UpdateAllRenderers 1.8ms\n\nWarning: 412 SetPass calls, target is under 80\nWarning: 1,482 draw calls, dynamic batching disabled by per-object material instances\n\nevery placed object gets a material instance so we can tint it on hover", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.75, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "outbound mail to one large provider started bouncing this morning:\n\n2026-07-29T09:02:14Z smtp-out[41221]: connecting to mx1.provider.example:25\n2026-07-29T09:02:14Z smtp-out[41221]: 220 mx1.provider.example ESMTP\n2026-07-29T09:02:15Z smtp-out[41221]: 250-STARTTLS\n2026-07-29T09:02:15Z smtp-out[41221]: TLS established, TLS1.3, X25519\n2026-07-29T09:02:15Z smtp-out[41221]: 550 5.7.1 Unauthenticated email from lumen.io is not accepted due to domain's DMARC policy\n2026-07-29T09:02:15Z smtp-out[41221]: message 8f2b1c40 bounced, queue removed\n\nour DMARC is p=reject, SPF passes, and DKIM signing was moved to a new key on monday", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.75, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "interest accruals are a few cents out for accounts opened mid-month, here's one:\n\naccount 4471, opened 2026-07-14, balance 250,000.00, rate 3.40% annual\nour accrual for July:\n  daily_rate = 0.034 / 365 = 0.00009315068493150685\n  days = 18\n  accrued = 250000 * 0.00009315068493150685 * 18 = 419.1780821917808 → posted 419.18\ncore banking system's accrual for July: 419.17\ndifference: 0.01\n\nthe mainframe computes a daily amount, rounds each day to two decimals, and sums; we compute over the period and round once", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.75, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "ok so our SMTP queue grows without bound for one destination and the workers all end up stuck on it:\n\nqueue stats:\n  total deferred: 412,882\n  by destination: provider.example 411,004, everything else 1,878\n  oldest deferred: 3 days\n  workers busy: 32/32, all on provider.example\n\nsmtp-out log:\n  421 4.7.0 Too many concurrent connections from this IP, try again later\n  (repeated, 41,882 times in the last hour)\n\nwe retry deferred messages every 60 seconds regardless of the destination's history, and we open a connection per message", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.75, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "la conciliación con el core bancario falla para las transferencias hechas el último día del mes:\n\ntransferencia 88412\n  nuestra fecha valor: 2026-07-31T23:58:14Z\n  fecha valor del core: 2026-08-01\n  importe: 12.400,00 EUR\n  estado en el core: liquidada\n  estado en nuestro sistema: pendiente de conciliar\n\nel core opera en hora local (Madrid, UTC+2) y cierra el día contable a las 23:00; nosotros guardamos todo en UTC y conciliamos por fecha, no por instante", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "es"}
{"prompt": "our on-call runbook for mail delivery is one paragraph. what the team actually does:\n\n- \"mail is slow\" almost always means one destination is deferring and workers are stuck on it\n- `mailctl queue top` shows deferred counts by destination; anything over 10,000 for one destination is the cause\n- `mailctl throttle add provider.example --concurrency 4` limits us without pausing delivery\n- pausing a destination entirely is a last resort; the queue keeps growing and we have no disk alarm on it\n- if reputation has dropped, check the postmaster tools before touching anything, because sending harder makes it worse\n- never rotate DKIM keys during an incident, which we have now done twice\n\nwrite the runbook page in the order someone paged at 3am would need it", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "the AR team's list, with the customer demo in six weeks:\n\n- colocation drift correction, which is the thing the demo needs\n- pinch detection ignoring stale poses, which makes the interaction feel broken\n- draw call reduction so we hold frame rate with a realistic scene\n- AnchorManager split, without which the first item is risky to attempt\n- session resume after the headset is removed, which enterprise customers keep asking for\n- hand menu on both hands, a small thing that testers mention every session\n\ntwo engineers, six weeks, and the demo is the only immovable thing", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.85, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "mail runbook should be a page rather than folklore, and rotating DKIM keys during an incident should be prevented rather than discouraged. write the runbook, then add the guard to the rotation command", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": "quickFix", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "statement view fails an accessibility audit on seven counts including an untagged PDF. fix what we can in the app, and write the remediation plan for the PDF pipeline, which is a bigger piece of work", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": "writing", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.75, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "our mail sending config across environments, and staging never reproduces deliverability issues:\n\n# staging\npools: { transactional: [10.0.0.1], marketing: [10.0.0.1], bulk: [10.0.0.1] }\nper_destination_concurrency: unlimited\nretry_interval: 60s\nmax_deferrals: 100\ndkim_selector: lumen2026\nfrom_domain: staging.lumen.io\n\n# prod\npools: { transactional: [4 IPs], marketing: [4 IPs], bulk: [4 IPs] }   # all the same four IPs\nper_destination_concurrency: unlimited\nretry_interval: 60s\nmax_deferrals: 100\ndkim_selector: lumen2026\nfrom_domain: lumen.io", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.4, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "the compliance requirement for statement delivery, which now has a date:\n\n\"Statements must be delivered to the customer's registered address of record within two business days of the statement date. Electronic delivery is permitted where the customer has consented and where delivery can be evidenced. A bounced or undeliverable statement must trigger fallback to postal delivery within one business day. Evidence of delivery, including bounce handling, must be retained for seven years and be producible per customer on request.\"\n\nwe send electronically, retain bounce records for 90 days, have no postal fallback, and cannot currently produce a per-customer delivery history. i want the plan in order of regulatory risk", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.9, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "mail templates are rendered by two engines depending on which team created them", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.55, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "a walkthrough of how a card authorisation becomes two ledger entries would help", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "one queue abstraction, not three", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.55, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "what guarantees does the batch make about ordering of postings within one account", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "statement view should let someone jump to a month without loading everything in between", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "honestly the AR anchors drift apart between two headsets in the same room:\n\nheadset A: anchor \"table\" at (1.204, 0.882, -2.114) confidence 0.91\nheadset B: anchor \"table\" at (1.188, 0.884, -2.098) confidence 0.88\nshared space: session s_4471, colocation via cloud anchors\ndrift over 10 minutes: A→B distance grew from 0.4cm to 4.1cm\nrelocalisation events: A 3, B 11\n\nwe resolve the cloud anchor once at session start and never re-resolve, and each headset applies its own tracking updates on top", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.85, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "i'm meant to approve this before it touches the ledger, and the transaction handling worries me:\n\n@Transactional(propagation = Propagation.REQUIRES_NEW)\npublic void applyBatch(List<Posting> postings) {\n    int i = 0;\n    for (Posting p : postings) {\n        jdbc.update(INSERT_POSTING, p.account(), p.amountCents(), p.currency(), p.ref());\n        jdbc.update(UPDATE_BALANCE, p.amountCents(), p.account());\n        if (++i % 1000 == 0) {\n            entityManager.flush();\n            entityManager.clear();\n        }\n    }\n}\n\nthe batch is 88,000 postings, UPDATE_BALANCE touches a row per account, and accounts appear many times in one batch in no particular order", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.85, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "right, the pinch detector, which is the whole interaction model of the product:\n\npublic void Update() {\n    var left = handSubsystem.GetHand(Handedness.Left);\n    if (!left.TryGetJoint(XRHandJointID.IndexTip, out var index)) return;\n    if (!left.TryGetJoint(XRHandJointID.ThumbTip, out var thumb)) return;\n    var d = Vector3.Distance(index.position, thumb.position);\n    if (d < pinchThreshold && state == State.Open) { state = State.Pinching; OnPinchStart?.Invoke(); }\n    else if (d > releaseThreshold && state == State.Pinching) { state = State.Open; OnPinchEnd?.Invoke(); }\n    lastIndex = index; lastThumb = thumb;\n}\n\nthere's no check on joint tracking confidence or pose timestamp, and TryGetJoint returns the last known pose rather than failing when tracking is lost", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "quick one — our retry and backoff for outbound mail, which i think is why one destination starves the queue:\n\nfunc (w *Worker) run() {\n    for msg := range w.queue {\n        if err := w.deliver(msg); err != nil {\n            if isTemporary(err) {\n                msg.NextAttempt = time.Now().Add(60 * time.Second)\n                w.queue.Requeue(msg)\n                continue\n            }\n            w.bounce(msg, err)\n        }\n    }\n}\n\nthirty-two workers share one queue, requeue puts the message back at the head, and there is no per-destination concurrency limit or backoff state", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.75, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "bitte prüfen, bevor das in die Abstimmung mit dem Kernbanksystem geht:\n\npublic LocalDate valueDate(Instant postedAt, String bookingCentre) {\n    ZoneId zone = ZoneId.of(\"UTC\");\n    return postedAt.atZone(zone).toLocalDate();\n}\n\npublic boolean isDuplicate(Posting p) {\n    return dao.exists(p.ref(), p.amountCents(), valueDate(p.postedAt(), p.centre()));\n}\n\ndas Kernbanksystem bucht in Ortszeit des Buchungszentrums und schließt den Buchungstag um 23:00 Uhr; unsere Duplikatsprüfung stützt sich auf ein Datum, das in UTC berechnet wird", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "de"}
{"prompt": "fyi the DKIM signing configuration after monday's key rotation:\n\n# signing config\nselector: lumen2026\ndomain: lumen.io\nkey: /etc/lumen/dkim/lumen2026.private\nheaders: from:to:subject:date:message-id\ncanonicalization: relaxed/simple\n\n# DNS\nlumen2026._domainkey.lumen.io.  TXT  \"v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkq...\"  (published monday 11:04)\nlumen._domainkey.lumen.io.      TXT  \"v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkq...\"  (old selector, still published)\n\n# DMARC\n_dmarc.lumen.io.  TXT  \"v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:dmarc@lumen.io; adkim=s; aspf=s\"\n\nsome of our senders still use the old selector, and adkim=s means strict alignment", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.75, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "heads up: the design doc for our ledger's idempotency, which i suspect is where the double posting came from:\n\n## Idempotency\nA posting is uniquely identified by (reference, amount, value date). A repeated posting with the same triple is ignored.\n\n## Rationale\nThe card network guarantees a unique reference per authorisation, so this is belt and braces.\n\n## Consequences\n- A genuine repeat charge on the same day for the same amount is silently dropped.\n- Value date is computed at ingestion, in UTC.\n\n## Not covered\nReversals. Partial captures. Networks that reuse references across days.\n\nwe now know the network can send the same reference twice within seconds, and one of our booking centres is UTC+2", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "small thing but the query our statement generator runs per account, and month-end takes eleven hours:\n\nSELECT e.id, e.posted_at, e.amount_cents, e.currency, e.description,\n       (SELECT balance_cents FROM balances b\n         WHERE b.account_id = e.account_id AND b.as_of <= e.posted_at\n         ORDER BY b.as_of DESC LIMIT 1) AS running_balance,\n       (SELECT name FROM merchants m WHERE m.id = e.merchant_id) AS merchant\nFROM ledger_entries e\nWHERE e.account_id = $1 AND e.posted_at BETWEEN $2 AND $3\nORDER BY e.posted_at;\n\n4.1 million accounts, ledger_entries has 8.2 billion rows partitioned by month, balances is a snapshot table written daily", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "support's notes on the duplicate transactions, which need to become something we can send customers:\n\n- the card network occasionally sends the same authorisation twice, seconds apart\n- our duplicate check uses reference plus amount plus value date, computed in UTC\n- for our Madrid booking centre, a transaction after 22:00 local has a UTC date of the next day\n- when the two copies straddle that boundary they get different value dates and both post\n- the reversal arrives later and nets it out, so the customer's balance ends correct\n- but the statement shows three lines and the customer sees a double charge for up to 30 minutes\n- support currently explains this by hand, differently each time\n\nwrite the explanation support can send, and separately tell me which parts are bugs rather than explanations", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.65, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "incident notes from the settlement failure, and the regulator will want this:\n\n01:02 batch SETTLE-20260729 starts, 88,214 postings\n02:41 batch fails at record 41,882 with a database deadlock\n02:41 rollback fails, connection closed; 41,881 postings are committed\n03:10 on-call escalates to the payments lead\n04:20 decision: do not re-run the batch, apply the remainder from a filtered file\n06:55 remaining 46,333 postings applied manually with a one-off script\n08:00 reconciliation with the core banking system passes\n09:30 customer impact assessed: 1,204 accounts saw a stale balance between 02:41 and 06:55\n\nwrite the incident report for our operational risk committee, who will ask why a partial batch was possible at all", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "as notas da reunião sobre a arquitetura de envio, para transformar em documento de decisão:\n\n- hoje temos um único conjunto de IPs para transacional, marketing e notificações\n- a reputação do domínio caiu depois de misturarmos recuperações de palavra-passe com marketing\n- a proposta é separar por subdomínio e por conjunto de IPs, com aquecimento progressivo\n- o aquecimento leva entre quatro e seis semanas e durante esse período a entrega é pior\n- alternativa: manter tudo junto e reduzir o volume de marketing, o que a equipa de growth recusa\n- há ainda a hipótese de usar um fornecedor externo só para marketing\n\nescreve a nota de decisão com as opções, os custos e uma recomendação", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "pt"}
{"prompt": "not urgent, but the auditor's questions on the ledger, which we've never answered in writing:\n\n1. How is a posting made idempotent, and what happens when the same reference arrives twice?\n2. Can a batch be partially applied, and how is that detected and remediated?\n3. Which staff can adjust a posted entry, and how is that evidenced?\n4. How are value dates determined across booking centres in different timezones?\n5. What is the reconciliation process against the core banking system, and what happens when it fails?\n6. How long are ledger entries retained and how is immutability assured?\n\nanswer each from the code and the runbooks, write it as a controls document, and mark anything you can't substantiate", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "社内向けのハンドトラッキング実装ガイドがありません。現状の挙動は次の通りです:\n\n- `TryGetJoint` はトラッキングが失われても最後の姿勢を返す。失敗しないので、呼び出し側で timestamp を確認する必要がある\n- 関節ごとに confidence 値があるが、我々のコードはどこでも見ていない\n- ピンチの閾値は 0.02m、リリースは 0.03m。ヒステリシスはあるが、手が遠いときの誤差は考慮していない\n- 片手が視界外に出ると、その手のイベントは発火しないまま状態が保持される\n- 60fps を下回るとフレーム間の移動量が大きくなり、閾値をまたぐ検出が不安定になる\n\nコード例:\n\nif (!left.TryGetJoint(XRHandJointID.IndexTip, out var index)) return;\nvar d = Vector3.Distance(index.position, thumb.position);\nif (d < pinchThreshold && state == State.Open) { ... }\n\n社内の開発者向けに、ハンドトラッキングを使う際の注意点をまとめたドキュメントを書いてください", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.65, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "ja"}
{"prompt": "genuinely puzzled by this: the settlement batch's operator guide, which is three commands and a warning. reality:\n\n- the batch runs at 01:00 and takes 90 minutes on a normal night, up to four hours at month end\n- it commits every 1,000 records with no checkpoint, so a failure leaves a partial batch and no safe restart\n- the recovery procedure is a one-off script that filters the input file by what's already applied\n- that script is written from scratch each time it's needed, by whoever is on call\n- reconciliation with the core system runs at 07:00 and will fail loudly if the batch is incomplete\n- there is a hard cut-off at 08:00 after which the business day starts and manual fixes are not permitted\n\nwrite the operator guide, and be explicit that the recovery procedure is currently improvised", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.65, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "spotbugs and error-prone on the ledger service, gate goes on next sprint:\n\nH C SIC: Should com.lumenbank.settlement.BatchRunner$Worker be a _static_ inner class?\nM P UPM: Private method PostingDao.checkpoint(long) is never called\nH C IS2: Inconsistent synchronization of BatchRunner.progress; locked 60% of time\nM D FS: Format string should use %n rather than \\n in StatementFormatter.render()\nH B RV: Return value of Instant.plus(long, TemporalUnit) ignored in ValueDate.forCentre()\n\nerror-prone:\n  [BigDecimalEquals] BigDecimal.equals compares scale; use compareTo — Accrual.java:141\n\nthe ignored return value and the BigDecimal equals both look like real money bugs", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.45, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "unity's analyzer and our own lint rules, before the store build:\n\nAssets/Scripts/Hands/PinchDetector.cs(22,9): warning UNT0008: Null propagation on a UnityEngine.Object\nAssets/Scripts/Anchors/AnchorManager.cs(88,13): warning UNT0001: Empty Unity message 'Start'\nAssets/Scripts/Anchors/AnchorManager.cs(141,5): warning UNT0017: SetPixels invocation is slow, consider SetPixels32\nAssets/Scripts/Render/Tinter.cs(41,7): warning LUM0002: Material instance created per object; use MaterialPropertyBlock\nAssets/Scripts/Session/Keeper.cs(66,3): warning CS4014: call not awaited\n\n5 warnings and the material one is our whole draw-call problem", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.35, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "for context, the DNS records for our sending domain, one of these is why some mail fails DMARC:\n\nlumen.io.                       TXT  \"v=spf1 include:_spf.lumen.io include:sendgrid.net ~all\"\n_dmarc.lumen.io.                TXT  \"v=DMARC1; p=reject; adkim=s; aspf=s; rua=mailto:dmarc@lumen.io\"\nlumen2026._domainkey.lumen.io.  TXT  \"v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBg...\"\nlumen._domainkey.lumen.io.      TXT  \"v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBg...\"\nmail.lumen.io.                  A    203.0.113.41\n\nour transactional mail signs with lumen2026 and sends From: notifications@mail.lumen.io", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.4, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "background: the batch job's kubernetes manifest, and it was OOMKilled twice this month:\n\nresources:\n  requests: { memory: 4Gi, cpu: \"2\" }\n  limits:   { memory: 4Gi, cpu: \"4\" }\nenv:\n  - name: JAVA_OPTS\n    value: \"-Xmx3g -XX:+UseG1GC\"\n  - name: BATCH_COMMIT_SIZE\n    value: \"1000\"\n  - name: BATCH_FETCH_SIZE\n    value: \"100000\"\nactiveDeadlineSeconds: 21600\nbackoffLimit: 0\n\nfetch size of 100,000 rows into a list, then processed in commits of 1,000", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.35, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "dependabot on the ledger service, four open and one is a CVE:\n\nspring-boot 3.3.2 → 3.3.5      (patch; includes a fix for a transaction manager regression)\noracle jdbc 23.4 → 23.6        (minor; batch execution behaviour changed for large batches)\njackson-databind 2.17.1 → 2.18.2 (CVE-2026-10112, deserialisation of untyped collections)\nlogback 1.5.6 → 1.5.13         (minor; JNDI lookup removed entirely)\n\nour batch runner uses oracle batch execution heavily and the JDBC changelog mentions \"executeLargeBatch now fails fast on the first error rather than continuing\"", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.45, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "les seuils d'alerte de la file d'attente mail, on nous réveille pour rien :\n\n- alert: MailQueueDepth\n  expr: mail_queue_deferred_total > 1000\n  for: 5m\n  labels: { severity: page }\n\n- alert: MailWorkerBusy\n  expr: mail_workers_busy / mail_workers_total > 0.9\n  for: 1m\n  labels: { severity: page }\n\n- alert: BounceRate\n  expr: rate(mail_bounced_total[1h]) / rate(mail_sent_total[1h]) > 0.05\n  for: 10m\n  labels: { severity: ticket }\n\nen réalité : la file dépasse 1000 chaque nuit pendant l'envoi des relevés ; les workers sont à 100% dès qu'un destinataire ralentit ; et l'incident réel (réputation effondrée, DMARC rejeté) n'a déclenché que le ticket, découvert trois jours plus tard", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.4, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "fr"}
{"prompt": "this manager has accumulated everything anchor-related. same behaviour, separable pieces:\n\npublic class AnchorManager : MonoBehaviour {\n    // resolves cloud anchors at session start\n    // tracks local anchors and their confidence\n    // owns the shared-space transform applied to all content\n    // handles relocalisation after tracking loss\n    // persists anchors to disk for session resume\n    // drives the debug visualisation\n    // subscribes to six XR subsystem events in Start and unsubscribes in none of them\n}\n\n900 lines, allocates in Update, and it's the class we most need to change for the drift fix", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "nuestro código de importe monetario está escrito de tres maneras en el mismo servicio:\n\n// Posting.java\nprivate final long amountCents;\n\n// Accrual.java\nprivate final BigDecimal amount;      // escala variable, comparada con equals() en dos sitios\n\n// legacy/CoreAdapter.java\nprivate final double amount;          // convertido a cents al escribir, con Math.round\n\nlos tres se convierten entre sí en los límites, la comparación con equals() de BigDecimal ya causó un descuadre en junio, y el double aparece en el adaptador que habla con el core bancario", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "es"}
{"prompt": "half-year planning input, needs sequencing:\n\n- the settlement batch has no checkpoint and a partial failure is now on the operational risk register\n- our value-date handling differs from the core banking system, which is behind three separate defects\n- AR colocation drift makes multi-user training sessions unusable past ten minutes\n- email reputation has to recover before the next statement run or a million statements go to spam\n- the ledger team loses two engineers to another division in september\n- there's a regulatory audit of the ledger in january\n- the AR product has a customer demo in six weeks that has been promised multi-user", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.9, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "architecture ticket, thinking needed before anyone starts:\n\nLED-880 — Restartable settlement\nThe nightly batch commits every thousand records with no checkpoint, so a failure leaves a partial batch and recovery is an improvised script. The proposal is a checkpoint table and an idempotent apply, so the batch can be resumed from the last committed position. Concerns: postings are not currently idempotent at the record level, only at the (reference, amount, value date) level; the input file is not stable across reruns because it is regenerated from the source system; the batch's runtime is already close to the 08:00 cutover at month end; and the operational risk register wants a documented recovery time.", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.9, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "spec for the mail operations console, which we stare at during deliverability incidents:\n\nDeliverability view\n- Per-destination table: deferred count, bounce rate, average latency, current concurrency, throttle state. Sorted by deferred descending.\n- A destination row expands to show the last 20 SMTP responses verbatim, which is what actually tells you what's wrong.\n- Reputation panel per pool: spam rate, domain reputation and IP reputation, with the provider's own thresholds marked.\n- Throttle controls inline per destination, with the current value and who set it last.\n- Queue age histogram, because \"how old is the oldest message\" is the question we always end up asking.\n- Everything read-only for on-call except throttles; pausing a destination requires a second person to confirm.\n- Must work on a phone, because this is what people open from bed.", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "accessibility findings on the banking app's statement view, from a regulator-mandated audit:\n\n1. The running balance column is announced as a bare number with no context, so screen reader users hear a stream of digits.\n2. Debit and credit are distinguished by colour and a minus sign rendered as an image.\n3. The date filter is a custom control with no keyboard support and no announced state.\n4. The statement PDF has no tags at all, so it is unreadable by assistive technology.\n5. Focus order jumps between the filter bar and the entry list on every filter change.\n6. Amounts use a font where 3 and 8 are hard to distinguish at the default size, and the app overrides system text size.\n7. Error messages on failed transfers are announced only visually.", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.75, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "design tokens versus what the banking app's transaction list actually uses:\n\ntokens:\n  color.surface        #FFFFFF / #0B0E11\n  color.text.default   #0B0E11 / #E9EEF3\n  color.text.muted     #5A6572\n  color.amount.debit   #B42318\n  color.amount.credit  #067647\n  space 4/8/12/16/24, radius 8/12, focus 2px accent offset 2\n  type: amount 17/22 tabular, body 15/20, caption 13/18\n\nthe transaction list: five hardcoded colours, amounts rendered in a proportional font so columns don't line up, a focus style removed on the row press target, and paddings of 6/11/15\n\nbring it onto the tokens, use the tabular figures for amounts, and restore the focus style", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.55, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "jackson CVE bump on the ledger", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.2, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "unpublish the old DKIM selector", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "hand menu on the left hand too", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.25, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "el importe sale sin separador de miles", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.15, "slice": "core", "lang": "es"}
{"prompt": "marketing off the transactional IPs", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.4, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "BigDecimal equals in Accrual.java", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.35, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "BounceRate should page, not ticket", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "Xmx passt nicht zum Memory-Limit", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "de"}
{"prompt": "ignored return value in ValueDate", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.35, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "tracking quality needs a shape, not a colour", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "amounts need tabular figures", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.25, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "expand a destination to see SMTP replies", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.4, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "our mail workers, queue and throttling are one package with the policy inline:\n\nfunc (w *Worker) deliver(msg *Message) error {\n    conn, err := smtp.Dial(msg.Destination.MX[0] + \":25\")   // no pooling, no per-destination limit\n    ...\n    if isTemporary(err) {\n        msg.NextAttempt = time.Now().Add(60 * time.Second)  // policy inline\n        return w.queue.Requeue(msg)\n    }\n    ...\n}\n\ni want the delivery policy — concurrency per destination, backoff schedule, deferral limits — expressed somewhere it can be tested and changed without touching the SMTP code, with today's behaviour as the default", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.65, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "the core banking system's interface spec, which we implement against:\n\nMQ-based, fixed-width records, one message per posting\n  fields: account (10), amount (13, implied 2 decimals, sign in the last byte), currency (3), value date (8, YYYYMMDD, booking centre local), reference (16), centre (4)\n  the core acknowledges each message with a status record; an unacknowledged message must be resent with the same reference\n  a resent message that the core already applied returns status 'DUP' and must be treated as success\n  the daily cutover is 23:00 booking centre local; messages after cutover carry the next business date\n  business dates skip weekends and the centre's holiday calendar, which we receive as a yearly file\n  the core rejects a batch if any record's value date is more than one business day in the past", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.85, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "mail console should show the oldest deferred message per destination, which is what we always ask", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.45, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "手のメニューが片手でしか出せません", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "core", "lang": "ja"}
{"prompt": "minus signs are rendered as images", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.25, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "date filter has no keyboard support", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.35, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "app overrides system text size", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "console is unusable on a phone", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.4, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "property blocks instead of material instances", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "un seul rendu de relevé, trois formats", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "fr"}
{"prompt": "`posted_at` naming, be consistent", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "split relocalisation out of AnchorManager", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "inline `isTemporary`, one caller", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.2, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "changelog for the AR 3.1 release", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "nota interna sobre a separação de IPs", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.4, "slice": "core", "lang": "pt"}
{"prompt": "document the 23:00 cutover rule", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.45, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "summarise the checkpoint proposal", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "PR body for the drift correction", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "can a batch commit half a transfer?", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "¿por qué el DMARC rechaza algunos correos?", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.65, "slice": "core", "lang": "es"}
{"prompt": "walk me through the reconciliation job", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "pinch stops working after a few minutes", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.75, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "one destination starves the mail queue", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "warum bucht der Batch nur die Hälfte?", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "de"}
{"prompt": "endpoint for a customer's delivery history", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "keep going on it", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "vague-eval", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "fewer alerts", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.45, "slice": "vague-eval", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "whatever the auditors will ask about", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "vague-eval", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "lo del correo, sigue", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.55, "slice": "vague-eval", "lang": "es"}
{"prompt": "anchors, again", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "vague-eval", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "tidy the ledger code", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "vague-eval", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "same as before", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "vague-eval", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "controls doc", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "vague-eval", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "something safe for a friday", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.4, "slice": "vague-eval", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "another set of eyes", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.45, "slice": "vague-eval", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "進め方はお任せします", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "vague-eval", "lang": "ja"}
{"prompt": "onto the next one", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "vague-eval", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "value dates disagree with the core banking system in three different ways depending on which of our four implementations you hit, and each disagreement has produced a defect. rather than fix them one at a time i want a position on where value date should be computed, who owns the business calendar, and how we'd prove agreement with the core continuously rather than at month end", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.9, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "multi-user AR sessions are unusable past about ten minutes because shared anchors drift, and the demo in six weeks has been promised multi-user. i want the approach decided properly — periodic re-resolution, relative correction between clients, or a different colocation mechanism entirely — with an honest view of what's achievable in six weeks versus what's the real fix", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.85, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "transactional email API is used by six teams from a wiki page written before the pools existed, and choosing the wrong pool degrades deliverability for everyone. write the reference documentation properly, with the pool guidance up front, the silent behaviours stated, and the rate limits published rather than discovered the last person who touched this left, so there's nobody to ask.", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.65, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "settlement batch's operator guide is three commands and a warning, while the real recovery procedure is improvised from scratch each time by whoever is on call at four in the morning. write the guide honestly, including that the recovery script does not exist, because pretending otherwise is how we got here i'd like enough detail that i can hand it to someone else to finish.", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.65, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "support explains our duplicate-transaction behaviour differently every time because nobody has written down what actually happens with the reference, the value date and the reversal. write the explanation they can send to a customer, in plain language, without implying the customer was charged twice when the balance was never wrong if the answer is that it's fine as it is, that's a useful answer too.", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.65, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "idempotency design doc says a card reference is unique per authorisation and treats that as belt and braces, which we now know is wrong in at least two ways. read it against the code and the incident and tell me which of its other assumptions are load-bearing, because i suspect the value-date one is worse than the reference one", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.85, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "colocation approach resolves a cloud anchor once and never revisits it, which the drift numbers suggest is the whole problem, but i'd like that confirmed rather than assumed before we commit six weeks to a fix. read the anchor lifecycle and the relocalisation path and tell me where the error actually accumulates a rough ordering matters more to me than a complete answer right now.", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.85, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "money is represented as long cents, BigDecimal and double in the same service, converted at every boundary, and one BigDecimal equals comparison already caused a reconciliation break. settle on one representation, convert at the edges only, and prove that every posting from last month produces an identical amount afterwards this is the third time it's bitten us and i'd like it to be the last.", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "instructor panel is what makes multi-user sessions manageable and right now it's a debug canvas with a participant count. build it to the spec — tracking quality as shape and colour, step control with confirmation, recentre-everyone with per-headset results — and make sure it's legible while the instructor walks", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "before we make the batch restartable i want the checkpoint semantics agreed — what a checkpoint covers, what happens to a partially applied commit, how the input file is made stable — and then the checkpoint table and resume path implemented against it", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": "backendImpl", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.9, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "IP and domain separation for mail needs a plan with a warm-up schedule, and it needs the transactional subdomain standing up now so the warm-up can start. give me the plan, then do the subdomain, DKIM and SPF setup for it i'd rather have the reasoning written down than a quick answer.", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": "backendImpl", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "anchor drift needs a proper design and the demo needs something in six weeks. work out the correction approach with me, then implement periodic re-resolution as the shippable subset, keeping the full design written down for afterwards", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": "frontendImpl", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.85, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "unsere Wertstellungslogik existiert viermal und weicht dreimal vom Kernbanksystem ab. Ich hätte gern zuerst eine Festlegung, wo das Datum berechnet wird und wem der Buchungskalender gehört, und danach die Zusammenführung an einer Stelle", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": "refactor", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.85, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "de"}
{"prompt": "our statement rendering is duplicated for PDF, HTML email and the CSV export:\n\n// StatementPdf.java   — iterates entries, formats amounts with a NumberFormat in the user's locale\n// StatementHtml.java  — iterates entries, formats amounts with String.format(\"%,.2f\")\n// StatementCsv.java   — iterates entries, writes raw cents\n\nall three compute the running balance independently; the PDF one is the regulated artefact; and the HTML one has a rounding difference on negative amounts that a customer noticed last month", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.65, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "the schema we agreed for delivery evidence, now it needs building:\n\nCREATE TABLE delivery_events (\n  id            bigserial PRIMARY KEY,\n  message_id    uuid NOT NULL,\n  customer_id   uuid NOT NULL,\n  kind          text NOT NULL CHECK (kind IN ('queued','sent','delivered','deferred','bounced','complained','suppressed')),\n  destination   text NOT NULL,\n  smtp_response text,\n  occurred_at   timestamptz NOT NULL,\n  provider_id   text\n);\nCREATE INDEX ON delivery_events (customer_id, occurred_at DESC);\n\nseven year retention, immutable once written, must be producible per customer within a working day, and must drive an automatic postal fallback when a statement bounces — which means the bounce has to be classified as permanent or temporary reliably", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "delivery evidence has a seven-year retention requirement and no design. decide with me what we record, how it stays immutable and how the postal fallback is triggered, then build the event write path", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": "backendImpl", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.85, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "email API reference has to exist before another team picks the wrong pool, and while writing it please confirm whether send_at really clamps silently at seven days, because two teams believe it errors", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": "review", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "hand-tracking guide needs writing and i suspect it will surface behaviours we should fix rather than document — the stale pose one especially. write the guide, and give me that list separately", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": "review", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.65, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "escribe la guía del operador para el batch de liquidación y comprueba en el código si el commit cada mil registros puede partir una transferencia en dos, porque de eso depende todo lo demás", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": "review", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.75, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "es"}
{"prompt": "tinting via material instances is the whole draw-call problem and the fix is property blocks. make the change, and document the rendering conventions so the next feature doesn't reintroduce it", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": "writing", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "three queue abstractions should become one, and i'd like to know first whether any of them is actually load-bearing for ordering guarantees. check that, then consolidate", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": "review", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "AnchorManager needs splitting before the drift work lands. do the split, then write the short note on which class owns the shared transform, because that's the question every bug report ends up being about", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": "writing", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "accruals differ from the core system by a cent for accounts opened mid-month, which looks like a rounding-frequency difference. confirm that from the code, then align our calculation and tell me how many accounts are affected historically", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": "backendImpl", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "queue starves whenever one destination defers, and thirty-two workers all end up on it. diagnose it properly, then implement per-destination concurrency so a slow provider can't take the whole sender down", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": "backendImpl", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.75, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "headset drops to 45fps in one area and the profiler blames draw calls, but i want the cause confirmed rather than inferred. work through it, then do whichever fix the evidence supports", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": "refactor", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "transaction list ignores the tokens and renders amounts in a proportional font. bring it onto the tokens with tabular figures, and tell me whether the amount column width changes enough to affect the layout on small phones", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": "review", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.55, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "core banking adapter needs to handle the DUP status as success rather than an error, and we should agree what a resend means for our own idempotency first. decide that, then implement", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": "planning", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "rename `Posting.ref`, it's the card network's reference in one place and ours in another", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "could you explain how a reversal is matched to the original posting when the reference repeats", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "is our suppression list checked at enqueue as well as at send, or only at send", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.55, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "why does the statement generator take eleven hours at month end when it's one query per account", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "missing template variables should fail loudly rather than rendering as an empty string, which is how one team shipped a statement email with a blank amount. change the default, give the forty-odd templates that rely on the current behaviour an explicit opt-out, and tell me which ones actually need it keep it concrete — file names and line numbers are more use than principles here.", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "pouvez-vous m'expliquer comment la date de valeur est calculée pour un centre en UTC+2 ?", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.65, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "fr"}
{"prompt": "docs/settlement.md describes a restartable batch, which is aspirational rather than true", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.45, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "a short note on why we're separating the sending domains, for the decision log", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.4, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "API changelog needs an entry for the pool parameter becoming required", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.4, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "javadoc on applyBatch promises atomicity that the commit-every-thousand loop doesn't provide", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "write the customer note about statements moving to a new sending domain", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.4, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "health check reports the batch service healthy while the last run failed halfway", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.35, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "staging sends from a single IP for all three pools, which is why pool bugs never appear there", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "how should we handle a booking centre in a timezone we don't currently support", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.75, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "what's the right way to test money code where the failure mode is a regulatory finding", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "i want a position on whether AR session state should live on the headset or the server", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.75, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "two teams want to send mail through us with their own domains, what should the tenancy model be", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.75, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "we need a plan for supporting a second core banking system for the acquired bank", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.85, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "what should happen to a scheduled send when the template is edited before it goes out", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "an endpoint that returns a posting's full lineage — source message, batch, reversals, adjustments", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "shared anchors should re-resolve on a timer with a drift correction applied between clients", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "deliverability view needs a per-pool reputation panel with the provider's thresholds marked", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "participant list should show who has fallen behind a step, not just who is connected", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "whatever's safe before month end", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.45, "slice": "vague-eval", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "next bit of the mail work", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.55, "slice": "vague-eval", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "batch runner and the online posting path each update balances with different locking, which is why a batch running during business hours can deadlock against normal traffic. bring them onto one path with one locking strategy, and tell me which of the two behaviours we're actually keeping, because they differ on ordering within an account", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": "review", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "i'd like an honest read on whether a support user can adjust a posted entry without leaving an audit trail, given the admin tooling and the direct database access two people still have, and the smallest change that closes it before january assume whoever picks it up next has no context beyond what you write.", "purpose": "review", "secondary": "planning", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "per-destination backoff state has to survive a restart, and the shape of that state depends on whether we treat a destination as an MX host or a domain. decide that with me — the two behave differently for providers with shared infrastructure — then implement it the sooner we know roughly how big this is, the better for planning.", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": "planning", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "internal page on the reconciliation process stops at \"the job compares both sides\" and everything that matters — what a break is, who investigates, what the cutover time means — is folklore. write the page properly, following one break from detection to resolution, and name the systems and people involved at each step i've already spent an afternoon on it and got nowhere useful.", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "AR session times out sixty seconds after a headset is removed, while enterprise customers run training where instructors take headsets off routinely for five minutes at a time. raise the timeout, make it configurable per deployment, and make sure a session that does expire tells participants why rather than simply disappearing this has come up in three separate reviews now and never gets done.", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.45, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "mail templates are rendered by two engines depending on which team created them, which means a variable that works in one silently produces nothing in the other, and neither team knows which engine their template uses. consolidate onto the newer engine, migrate the older templates, and diff the rendered output for a sample of each so nothing changes under a customer's nose", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.65, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "ledger service schedules work three ways — quartz, a database poller and a cron container — and which one a job uses depends entirely on when it was written. settle on one mechanism, migrate the jobs, and make sure the ones with strict timing relative to the settlement batch keep their ordering guarantees it doesn't have to be elegant, it has to be defensible in a review.", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "`Posting.ref` means the card network's reference in the ingestion path and our own generated reference everywhere else, which is exactly the confusion behind the duplicate posting incident. give the two concepts different names throughout, keep the database columns as they are for now, and flag any place where the ambiguity is currently load-bearing", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "nobody can tell me what the reconciliation job does when it finds a break at month end, specifically whether it stops, continues, or quietly writes an adjustment. read the job and its runbook together and tell me what really happens, and how many breaks went through that path last quarter flag anything you'd want to change before doing it rather than after.", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "statement generator issues one query per account with two correlated subqueries inside it, and month end takes eleven hours against a nine hour window. before anyone rewrites it i want to know where the time actually goes and whether the balances snapshot table is being used at all there's no rush on this week specifically, but it keeps costing us time.", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.75, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
{"prompt": "suppression list is checked at send time rather than at enqueue, so a statement scheduled a week ahead can go to an address that unsubscribed yesterday, which is a compliance problem rather than an inconvenience. check at both points, keep the send-time check as the authority, and record which check suppressed a message the last person who touched this left, so there's nobody to ask.", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.55, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
