201 lines
81 KiB
JSON
201 lines
81 KiB
JSON
{"prompt": "courier locations stop updating for a subset of couriers every evening:\n\n[location] 18:41:02 batch received, 412 couriers\n[location] 18:41:02 written to redis, 412 keys\n[location] 18:46:02 batch received, 388 couriers\n[location] 18:51:02 batch received, 214 couriers\n[location] 18:56:02 batch received, 88 couriers\n[app] courier c_9021 location publisher: android doze mode entered\n[app] courier c_9021 location publisher: wakelock released by system\n\nthe android app publishes from a foreground service, but only while the courier is actively holding the phone; the numbers drop as couriers pocket their phones after pickup", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "our partner changelog needs an entry for the proof-of-delivery threshold becoming public", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.4, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "the courier app should show why an offer was rejected, rather than the offer simply vanishing", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.45, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "a chain's IT team asked five questions about opening-hours propagation and our honest answers are all worse than they expect. write the documentation that answers them accurately, including the beta API's real limitations, without either overselling it or making the product sound unfinished it doesn't have to be elegant, it has to be defensible in a review.", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.65, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "courier screen", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "vague-eval", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "our health endpoint reports the dispatcher healthy while its zone has no couriers connected at all", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.35, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "the geometry kernel is wrapped in three adapter layers, each added because nobody wanted to touch the one below, and a simple call now crosses all three with a conversion at every boundary. collapse them to one adapter, keep the kernel's semantics exactly as they are, and tell me which conversions were silently lossy", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": "review", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.75, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "gateway returns 503 for one upstream while envoy says the cluster is healthy:\n\nenvoy access log:\n[2026-07-29T11:02:14.881Z] \"POST /v1/orders HTTP/2\" 503 UF 0 91 30001 - \"-\" \"lumen-app/4.1\" \"8f2b1c40\" \"orders.internal\" \"10.4.2.71:8080\"\n\nresponse flags: UF = upstream connection failure\ncluster stats:\n upstream_cx_connect_timeout: 41882\n upstream_cx_active: 0\n upstream_rq_pending_overflow: 0\n health_check.attempt: 8412\n health_check.success: 8412\n membership_healthy: 4\n\nhealth checks pass on :8081 and traffic goes to :8080, which is a detail nobody remembered until today", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.75, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "flutter app shows stale order status for about a minute after delivery:\n\n[ws] connected wss://api.lumen.io/orders/88412/events\n[ws] event {\"type\":\"picked_up\",\"at\":\"18:52:11Z\"}\n[ws] event {\"type\":\"en_route\",\"at\":\"18:52:44Z\"}\n[ws] ping timeout, reconnecting (attempt 1)\n[ws] connected wss://api.lumen.io/orders/88412/events\n[ws] event {\"type\":\"en_route\",\"at\":\"18:52:44Z\"}\n[http] GET /orders/88412 → status: delivered, delivered_at: 18:58:02Z\n[ui] still showing \"on its way\"\n\non reconnect the socket replays from the last event it has rather than the current state, and the UI only updates from socket events", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.65, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "elixir cluster partitions during deploys and orders get double-assigned:\n\n11:02:14.101 [warn] :global name conflict for {:dispatcher, \"Z3\"}, resolving\n11:02:14.104 [info] node [email protected] down\n11:02:14.118 [info] :global re-registering {:dispatcher, \"Z3\"} on [email protected]\n11:02:14.882 [warn] duplicate assignment detected for order 88412: c_9021 and c_9044\n11:02:15.114 [info] node [email protected] up\n11:02:15.118 [warn] :global name conflict for {:dispatcher, \"Z3\"}, resolving\n\ndeploys are rolling, four nodes, and the dispatcher is a singleton per zone registered with :global", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.85, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "a bulk status endpoint for chains needs rate limits that accommodate 1,400 calls in a burst without letting anyone else do the same. decide the shape with me, then implement", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": "planning", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "couriers get assigned orders from closed restaurants during the dinner rush:\n\n[dispatch] 18:41:02.114 order 88412 ready_at=18:55 restaurant=r_4471 zone=Z3\n[dispatch] 18:41:02.118 candidate couriers: 12 within 2km\n[dispatch] 18:41:02.141 assigned to courier c_9021 (score 0.88, eta_to_pickup 6m)\n[dispatch] 18:41:02.882 courier c_9021 accepted\n[restaurant] 18:38:44.001 r_4471 status changed to closed (manual, staff)\n[dispatch] 18:41:12.004 order 88412 pickup failed: restaurant closed\n[dispatch] 18:41:12.009 order 88412 requeued, courier c_9021 released, compensation issued\n\nthe dispatcher reads restaurant state from a GenServer cache that refreshes every five minutes", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.75, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "CAD files saved on windows won't open on mac, one customer's whole team is blocked:\n\nreading assembly.cadx:\n header ok, version 4.1, units mm\n reading part 1/41: ok\n reading part 2/41: ok\n reading part 12/41: error: referenced file not found: C:\\Users\\dana\\Projects\\brackets\\M6.cadpart\n reading part 13/41: error: referenced file not found: ..\\..\\shared\\fasteners\\M6.cadpart\n\nwe store both an absolute and a relative path for each referenced part, prefer the absolute, and fall back to the relative resolved against the assembly's directory using the platform separator", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "design doc for our order state machine, written a year ago. does it match what we run?\n\n## States\nplaced → confirmed → preparing → ready → picked_up → en_route → delivered\nAny state can transition to cancelled before picked_up. After picked_up, only delivered or failed.\n\n## Guarantees\n- Transitions are recorded in an append-only log and are the source of truth.\n- Clients derive current state from the log, so replay is always safe.\n- The websocket delivers every transition at least once, in order.\n\n## Not covered\nRestaurant-initiated cancellation after pickup. Partial refunds. Multi-courier handoff.\n\nwe added handoff in March, cancellation after pickup exists in the admin tool, and the socket replays from the client's last event rather than the log head", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.75, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "gateway's retry policy, which i think is amplifying incidents rather than smoothing them:\n\nretry_policy:\n retry_on: 5xx,reset,connect-failure,refused-stream\n num_retries: 3\n per_try_timeout: 10s\n retry_back_off: { base_interval: 0.025s, max_interval: 0.25s }\n retriable_status_codes: [503]\nrequest_timeout: 30s\n\nthe upstreams behind this include a payment service that is not idempotent on POST, and during the last incident our own retries tripled the load on a service that was already failing\n\nlast incident, from the upstream's side:\n inbound rps before: 1,200\n inbound rps during the incident: 3,910\n upstream_rq_retry: 41,882 in ten minutes\n upstream_rq_retry_overflow: 0\n our own error rate at the edge: 61%\n\nthe payment service owner has asked, twice, that we stop retrying their POSTs", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "redis config versus what the docs recommend for our access pattern:\n\n# ours\nmaxmemory: 8gb\nmaxmemory-policy: noeviction\nappendonly: yes\nappendfsync: everysec\nsave: 900 1 300 10 60 10000\ntimeout: 0\ntcp-keepalive: 300\n\nwe store courier locations (ephemeral, 30s TTL), dispatch state (must not be lost), and a session cache (rebuildable)\n\nthe noeviction policy means that when we hit 8gb, writes fail and dispatch stops, which happened last friday\n\nfriday's numbers when it filled:\n used_memory: 8.00G / 8.00G\n evicted_keys: 0\n rejected_connections: 0\n errors: OOM command not allowed when used memory > 'maxmemory' (41,882 in six minutes)\n keyspace: courier:loc:* 6.1G, dispatch:inflight:* 1.2G, session:* 0.7G\n\ndispatch stopped for eleven minutes and nothing recovered it until someone flushed the location keys by hand", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.4, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "document class has become the place everything goes. same behaviour, better seams:\n\nclass Document : public QObject {\n // owns the geometry tree\n // owns the undo stack\n // owns the selection\n // handles save, autosave and recovery\n // holds the plugin-visible IDocument implementation\n // emits 22 signals, of which the UI connects 19\n // has a static registry of open documents used by the plugin host\n};\n\n2,400 lines, and every one of those responsibilities has needed changing this quarter\n\nfor scale, this quarter's changes touched:\n save/autosave path 6 commits\n undo stack ownership 4 commits\n selection model 3 commits\n plugin-visible IDocument 5 commits\n the static open-documents registry 2 commits\n\nand every one of those commits also had to touch at least one unrelated part of the same file", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.75, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "restaurant cache refresh to 30 seconds", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.25, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "route inspector needs a diff view", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "one availability check for couriers", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.55, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "is one_for_all right for the zone tree?", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.75, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "i'd like an honest read of whether a slow offer loop can block a whole zone's dispatch, given three sequential twenty-second offers in the dispatcher process, and the fix if it can", "purpose": "review", "secondary": "backendImpl", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "what does the dispatcher do with an offer that's accepted after the window closes", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.65, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "flutter analyze before the store release:\n\ninfo • Avoid `print` calls in production code • lib/services/ws_client.dart:88:5 • avoid_print\nwarning • The value of the field '_reconnectTimer' isn't used • lib/services/ws_client.dart:22:9 • unused_field\ninfo • Use 'const' with the constructor to improve performance • lib/widgets/order_card.dart:41:12 • prefer_const_constructors\nwarning • Missing case clause for 'handoff' • lib/models/order_state.dart:66:5 • missing_enum_case_clause\ninfo • Don't use 'BuildContext's across async gaps • lib/screens/order_screen.dart:141:22 • use_build_context_synchronously\n\n5 issues, and the missing enum case is the handoff state we added in march", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "gateway filters are copy-pasted per route with small differences:\n\n# routes/orders.yaml\nhttp_filters: [cors, jwt_auth, rate_limit, request_id, router]\n\n# routes/partners.yaml\nhttp_filters: [cors, jwt_auth, rate_limit, request_id, ext_authz, router]\n\n# routes/internal.yaml\nhttp_filters: [request_id, router]\n\n# routes/legacy.yaml\nhttp_filters: [cors, api_key_auth, rate_limit, router] # no request_id, which is why legacy traces are useless\n\nfour lists maintained by hand, and adding a filter means remembering all four files", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.55, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "elixir contexts have leaked into each other and the boundaries are gone:\n\nLumen.Orders.get_order/1 # used by Dispatch, Couriers, Admin, Billing\nLumen.Dispatch.assign/2 # calls Orders.update_state/2 directly\nLumen.Couriers.available?/1 # duplicated in Dispatch, as above\nLumen.Billing.charge/1 # called from Orders.deliver/1 inline\nLumen.Admin.force_reassign/2 # calls Dispatch internals via :sys.replace_state\n\nfive contexts, no boundaries, and the admin one reaches into a GenServer's state to fix production problems", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "modeller crashes when undoing a boolean operation on a large assembly:\n\nThread 1 \"cadmodeller\" received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.\n0x00007ffff7a2c118 in cad::geom::BRepShape::~BRepShape() at src/geom/brep.cpp:412\n412\t for (auto* face : faces_) delete face;\n(gdb) bt\n#0 cad::geom::BRepShape::~BRepShape\n#1 0x0000555555601a44 in cad::undo::BooleanCommand::undo() at src/undo/boolean.cpp:141\n#2 0x00005555556220c8 in cad::undo::UndoStack::undo() at src/undo/stack.cpp:88\n#3 0x00007ffff7b0a112 in QAction::triggered()\n(gdb) p faces_.size()\n$1 = 41882\n\nthe boolean result shares face pointers with its operands, and undo deletes the result while the operands are still live", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.85, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "nuestro gateway devuelve 429 a un cliente que está muy por debajo de su límite:\n\ncliente: partner_4471, límite contratado 1000 rpm\nmétricas del gateway:\n ratelimit_hits{descriptor=\"partner_4471\"} 412 rpm\n ratelimit_over_limit{descriptor=\"partner_4471\"} 188 rpm\n ratelimit_error{...} 0\n\nconfiguración:\n descriptors:\n - key: partner_id\n rate_limit: { unit: minute, requests_per_unit: 1000 }\n - key: partner_id\n value: partner_4471\n rate_limit: { unit: second, requests_per_unit: 5 }\n\nel segundo descriptor lo añadió alguien hace meses para una prueba de carga", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "es"}
|
|
{"prompt": "before this goes near production, is the supervision strategy right?\n\ndefmodule Lumen.Dispatch.ZoneSupervisor do\n use Supervisor\n\n def init(zone) do\n children = [\n {Lumen.Dispatch.Dispatcher, zone},\n {Lumen.Dispatch.CourierCache, zone},\n {Lumen.Dispatch.RestaurantCache, zone}\n ]\n Supervisor.init(children, strategy: :one_for_all, max_restarts: 3, max_seconds: 5)\n end\nend\n\nthe dispatcher holds in-flight assignments in its state, the caches are refreshed every five minutes from postgres, and a restart loses whatever the dispatcher was holding", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "undo implementation, which i inherited and which is the source of two crash clusters:\n\nclass BooleanCommand : public Command {\n BRepShape* result_;\n BRepShape* lhs_;\n BRepShape* rhs_;\npublic:\n void redo() override {\n result_ = geom::boolean_union(lhs_, rhs_); // shares face pointers with operands\n doc_->replace({lhs_, rhs_}, result_);\n }\n void undo() override {\n doc_->replace({result_}, {lhs_, rhs_});\n delete result_;\n }\n};\n\nthe undo stack holds a hundred of these, documents can be closed with the stack non-empty, and geom::boolean_union is documented as \"may reference input geometry\"", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.85, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "rate limit configuration we ship to customers, which i suspect nobody fully understands:\n\ndomain: lumen_api\ndescriptors:\n - key: partner_id\n rate_limit: { unit: minute, requests_per_unit: 1000 }\n - key: partner_id\n value: partner_4471\n rate_limit: { unit: second, requests_per_unit: 5 }\n - key: partner_id\n descriptors:\n - key: endpoint\n value: /v1/orders\n rate_limit: { unit: minute, requests_per_unit: 100 }\n\nwhen a request matches several descriptors, which apply? all of them, the most specific, or the first match? our documentation says one thing and the behaviour looks like another", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "file format's reference handling, which is why cross-platform assemblies break:\n\nstruct PartRef {\n std::string absolute_path; // as saved on the authoring machine\n std::string relative_path; // relative to the assembly file, native separators\n std::optional<Uuid> content_id; // added in 4.0, populated only for new refs\n};\n\nPartRef resolve(const PartRef& ref, const fs::path& assembly_dir) {\n if (fs::exists(ref.absolute_path)) return load(ref.absolute_path);\n auto rel = assembly_dir / ref.relative_path;\n if (fs::exists(rel)) return load(rel);\n throw NotFound(ref.absolute_path);\n}\n\ncontent_id exists and is never used in resolution; relative paths keep whatever separator the authoring platform used", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.65, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "changelog for the modeller's 4.2 release:\n\n41c9e0b fix(undo): boolean undo no longer frees geometry still referenced by operands\n88f21c0 feat(files): assemblies resolve references by content id before falling back to paths\nc0aa774 fix(autosave): autosave writes to a temporary file and renames, never truncates in place\n2e91b45 feat(perf): assembly load is now parallel, 41 parts in 2s instead of 14s\naa30f19 fix(ui): the measurement tool no longer snaps to hidden geometry\n9c1d004 chore: minimum macOS is 13, minimum Windows is 10 22H2\n4410bb7 feat(export): STEP export preserves assembly structure\nb77e910 fix(undo): the undo stack is cleared on document close rather than leaked\n\nour users are mechanical engineers; two of these are data-loss fixes and should be impossible to miss", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "three modules decide whether a courier is available and they disagree:\n\n# dispatch/assign.ex\ndefp available?(c), do: c.status == :online and c.current_assignment == nil\n\n# dispatch/stacking.ex\ndefp can_take_more?(c), do: c.status in [:online, :delivering] and length(c.assignments) < 2\n\n# admin/courier_view.ex\ndef available?(c), do: c.status == :online and c.last_seen_at > minutes_ago(2)\n\nstacking is the newest and the only one that considers the two-assignment limit; the admin view is what support looks at when a courier complains they're getting no work", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "opening-hours API the chain customer wants, currently a beta nobody supports:\n\nPUT /v1/restaurants/{id}/status { open: bool, reason?: string, until?: timestamp }\n must take effect in dispatch within 30 seconds, contractually\n a close with `until` reopens automatically; without it, the restaurant stays closed until reopened\n orders already accepted are unaffected, which the customer has agreed to but wants stated\n the caller may be the chain's own system, so authentication is a chain-scoped key covering many restaurants\n we must record who closed it and why, and expose that on GET for their own audit\n they will call this for 1,400 restaurants and expect bulk semantics — one call per restaurant is acceptable but rate limits must accommodate it", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.75, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "el mapa no centra en la recogida", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.25, "slice": "core", "lang": "es"}
|
|
{"prompt": "Autosave darf nicht in-place schreiben", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.4, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "de"}
|
|
{"prompt": "doc comments on the plugin interface", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.4, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "why is mTLS costing us 40ms?", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "order as you see fit", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.55, "slice": "vague-eval", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "we owe the restaurant chain a written explanation of why couriers kept arriving at locations they had closed, and their complaint is reputational rather than financial. write the incident report for a non-technical operations audience, honest about the five-minute cache, and clear about what changes and by when i've already spent an afternoon on it and got nowhere useful.", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "assignments occasionally go to two couriers during a rolling deploy and the logs show :global resolving a name conflict at exactly that moment. work through what happens to the dispatcher's in-flight state when the registration moves, before we decide whether the answer is durability or a different registry if the answer is that it's fine as it is, that's a useful answer too.", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.9, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "staging has four upstreams and prod has forty-one, with the same connection pool settings", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "per-partner circuit breaking in the gateway, so one slow partner can't take the pool", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "CAD plugin API, which four customers write against with only a header file for documentation:\n\nclass IPlugin {\npublic:\n virtual const char* name() const = 0;\n virtual int apiVersion() const = 0; // must equal CAD_PLUGIN_API_VERSION\n virtual void onDocumentOpened(IDocument*) {}\n virtual void onSelectionChanged(const ISelection&) {}\n virtual bool onCommand(const char* id, ICommandContext&) { return false; }\n virtual void registerCommands(ICommandRegistry&) {}\n};\n\nthings only we know: onSelectionChanged is called on the UI thread and blocking it freezes the app; IDocument pointers are invalidated on close with no notification; onCommand returning true suppresses the built-in command of the same id, including our own; and apiVersion mismatches are silently ignored, the plugin simply never loads\n\nwrite the plugin developer guide", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.65, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "gateway's config in staging and prod, and staging never reproduces our timeouts:\n\n# staging\nconnect_timeout: 5s\nrequest_timeout: 30s\nretry: { num_retries: 3, per_try_timeout: 10s }\nhealth_check: { interval: 10s, unhealthy_threshold: 3, port: 8080 }\ncircuit_breakers: { max_connections: 1024, max_pending_requests: 1024 }\nupstreams: 4\n\n# prod\nconnect_timeout: 30s\nrequest_timeout: 30s\nretry: { num_retries: 3, per_try_timeout: 10s }\nhealth_check: { interval: 10s, unhealthy_threshold: 3, port: 8081 }\ncircuit_breakers: { max_connections: 1024, max_pending_requests: 1024 }\nupstreams: 41", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.35, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "design spec for the courier app's active delivery screen, flutter:\n\nActive delivery\n- Map fills the top two thirds, route to the next waypoint, courier position as a heading arrow; recentres on a 5 second idle.\n- Bottom card: address, customer name, order items collapsed to a count, and the primary action for the current stage (Arrived / Picked up / Delivered).\n- The primary action is a slide-to-confirm control, not a button, because accidental taps cost us orders.\n- Stacked deliveries show a second card behind the first with the next drop's ETA; swiping up reveals it.\n- Offline: the screen keeps working from cached data, actions queue with a visible \"will send when back online\" state, and the slide control still works.\n- Battery: the screen must not keep the display awake; navigation hand-off to the system maps app is a single tap.\n- Everything must be usable one-handed with gloves on, which means 56dp minimum targets and no long-press-only actions.", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "redis policy to allkeys-lru for locations", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.4, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "one websocket client for all screens", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.55, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "document the 20 second offer window", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.4, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "courier API is used by our own flutter app and two partner fleets, and it's documented in a google doc that nobody has updated since the offer window changed. write the reference properly, with the silent drop of over-frequent location updates and the unpublished proof-of-delivery threshold stated plainly rather than discovered by integration partners the hard way", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.65, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "our gateway config lives in two repos owned by two teams and neither validates the other's assumptions", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "the offer window is twenty seconds in the dispatcher and twenty-five in the app, which makes legitimate late accepts look like client bugs and has generated a month of misdirected support tickets. align them, and write the short note for support explaining what the symptom actually was context if it helps: this has been open since before i joined the team.", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": "writing", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.45, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "a walkthrough of how an order reaches a courier's phone would help before i touch the socket layer", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.55, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "courier scoring function has grown a term per incident, its weights were tuned by hand three times, and nothing about it is tested. restructure it so each term is separately testable and the weights live in configuration, keeping the ranking identical for a replayed evening of real assignments i'd like enough detail that i can hand it to someone else to finish.", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.75, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "our internal page on the dispatch pipeline stops at \"the dispatcher assigns the order\" and everything after that — offers, acceptance, stacking, handoff — is folklore held by two people. write the page properly, following one order from placement to delivery and naming every service and queue it passes through nobody has trusted this code for about a year, which is part of the problem.", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "the measurement tool snaps to hidden geometry, which two customers have described as actively dangerous because a measurement that looks right can be taken from a suppressed part. change the snapping to respect visibility, keep the existing snap priorities otherwise, and make sure suppressed parts stay excluded when they're temporarily shown", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "couriers sent to closed restaurants", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "gateway retries 503s and connect failures three times by default, including for POSTs to a payment service that is not idempotent, and this amplified both of our last two incidents. work through what a defensible retry policy looks like per route class, how we'd enforce idempotency where retries are allowed, and how we stop a well-meaning default from doing this again", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.85, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "elixir contexts have leaked into each other to the point where the admin tool reaches into a GenServer's state to fix production problems. i'd rather agree what the boundaries should be, and what each context owns, than keep adding functions wherever they're convenient — with a view on which violations are worth fixing first", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "route inspector is what we open during incidents and it currently shows the config as written rather than as effective, which has misled us twice. build the effective-config view with provenance per value, the request-id lookup, and inline flags for dangerous settings keep it concrete — file names and line numbers are more use than principles here.", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.75, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "flutter app has three websocket clients with three reconnect strategies and none of them refetches state on reconnect. unify them, then document the reconnect contract so the next screen doesn't invent a fourth", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": "writing", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.65, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "restaurant portal ignores half our design tokens and removes focus styles on three components. bring it onto the tokens, and tell me which colour changes will be visible to restaurants who've used this daily for two years", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": "review", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.55, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "i'd like to understand how the undo stack interacts with document close, because i suspect it leaks", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "is our health check actually checking the port that serves traffic", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.55, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "what guarantees does the location endpoint make about ordering when a phone uploads a backlog", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.65, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "a short note on why we're moving dispatcher state to postgres, for the decision log", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.4, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "modeller's autosave corrupts files when the app is killed mid-save:\n\nsave sequence from the log:\n 11:02:14.101 autosave started, target /Users/dana/proj/assembly.cadx\n 11:02:14.104 truncating existing file\n 11:02:14.882 wrote header + 12/41 parts\n <process killed>\n\non next open:\n error: unexpected end of file at offset 8412114 (expected 41882002)\n no backup found; autosave overwrites in place and .bak is only written on explicit save\n\nthe customer lost four hours of work and is understandably furious", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "requests through the mesh get 40ms slower after we enabled mTLS, which is more than we expected:\n\nbefore:\n p50 8ms p95 22ms p99 41ms\nafter:\n p50 12ms p95 61ms p99 188ms\n\nenvoy stats:\n ssl.handshake: 41,882/min\n ssl.session_reused: 118/min\n upstream_cx_total: 41,882/min\n upstream_cx_http2_total: 0\n\nour sidecars are configured for HTTP/1.1 upstreams with no connection pooling changes, so every request appears to be establishing a new TLS session\n\nsidecar config, the relevant part:\n http_protocol_options: { explicit_http_config: { http_protocol_options: {} } }\n common_http_protocol_options: { idle_timeout: 1s }\n circuit_breakers: { max_connections: 1024 }\n transport_socket: { name: envoy.transport_sockets.tls }\n\nthe one second idle timeout was copied from an example config a year ago and nobody has questioned it since", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.75, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "bitte einmal drüberschauen, das läuft im Abendgeschäft:\n\ndef assign(order, couriers) do\n couriers\n |> Enum.filter(&available?/1)\n |> Enum.map(&{&1, score(&1, order)})\n |> Enum.sort_by(fn {_, s} -> -s end)\n |> Enum.take(3)\n |> Enum.reduce_while(nil, fn {courier, _}, _ ->\n case offer(courier, order, timeout: 20_000) do\n :accepted -> {:halt, courier}\n _ -> {:cont, nil}\n end\n end)\nend\n\nbis zu 20 Sekunden pro Kurier, drei Kuriere nacheinander, und der aufrufende Prozess ist der Dispatcher für die ganze Zone", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "de"}
|
|
{"prompt": "query behind our restaurant dashboard, which times out for chains:\n\nSELECT r.id, r.name,\n count(*) FILTER (WHERE o.state = 'delivered' AND o.placed_at > now() - interval '7 days') AS delivered_7d,\n avg(EXTRACT(epoch FROM (o.picked_up_at - o.ready_at))) FILTER (WHERE o.picked_up_at IS NOT NULL) AS avg_wait,\n (SELECT count(*) FROM order_issues i WHERE i.restaurant_id = r.id AND i.resolved_at IS NULL) AS open_issues,\n (SELECT avg(rating) FROM reviews rv WHERE rv.restaurant_id = r.id AND rv.created_at > now() - interval '30 days') AS rating\nFROM restaurants r\nLEFT JOIN orders o ON o.restaurant_id = r.id\nWHERE r.chain_id = $1\nGROUP BY r.id, r.name;\n\none chain has 1,400 restaurants and orders is 400M rows partitioned by month", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.75, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "support's notes on the assembly-won't-open problem, they need to become a customer-facing article:\n\n- happens when an assembly authored on windows is opened on mac or linux, or vice versa\n- the absolute path is tried first and obviously fails on the other platform\n- the relative path then fails too if it was saved with backslashes\n- workaround is opening each missing part manually once, which rewrites the reference\n- for a 40-part assembly that's twenty minutes of clicking\n- files saved by 4.0 or later have a content id we could use but don't\n- customers on mixed-platform teams hit this every time they share a file\n\nwrite the article, including the workaround, and separately tell me what the real fix looks like", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.55, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "courier-facing API, which the flutter app and two partner fleets use, documented in a google doc:\n\nPOST /v1/couriers/{id}/location { lat, lon, accuracy_m, heading, speed_kph, battery_pct, at }\n accepted at up to 1 Hz; anything faster is silently dropped, not rejected\n a location older than 60 seconds is ignored, which partners discover by having their history not appear\nPOST /v1/offers/{id}/respond { accept: bool, reason? }\n must be within the 20 second offer window; late responses get 409 and the offer is already gone\nGET /v1/couriers/{id}/assignments\n returns current and next assignment; \"next\" only exists during a stacked delivery\nPOST /v1/assignments/{id}/events { type: \"arrived\"|\"picked_up\"|\"delivered\", at, proof? }\n proof is required for delivered when the order is high value, and the threshold is not published\n\nwrite the reference; the silent drops and the unpublished threshold are what partners keep asking about", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.65, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "notes from the incident review, we owe the restaurants an explanation:\n\n18:41 couriers begin receiving orders from restaurants that had closed\n18:52 pattern identified: closures made in the last five minutes are not seen by dispatch\n19:04 restaurant cache refresh reduced from five minutes to thirty seconds as a stopgap\n19:20 issue stops recurring\n21:00 44 orders affected, all requeued or refunded, 12 couriers compensated for wasted trips\n\nroot cause: the dispatcher reads restaurant open/closed state from an in-memory cache refreshed on a timer, with no invalidation when a restaurant changes state\n\nthe restaurants' complaint is that they closed and we kept sending couriers, which made them look bad to customers", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "les notes de la réunion d'architecture, à transformer en document de décision :\n\n- la passerelle applique aujourd'hui quatre politiques différentes selon l'ancienneté de la route\n- personne ne sait laquelle s'applique quand plusieurs descripteurs correspondent\n- la documentation dit « le plus spécifique gagne », le code applique tous les descripteurs correspondants\n- les partenaires configurent leurs propres limites via un fichier YAML que nous appliquons sans validation\n- une limite mal écrite peut aujourd'hui bloquer un partenaire entier, ce qui est déjà arrivé deux fois\n- l'équipe propose un seul modèle explicite, avec validation au moment de l'écriture\n\nrédige la note de décision avec les options et une recommandation", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "fr"}
|
|
{"prompt": "operator's guide for the gateway is a single page from when we had one cluster. what's true now:\n\n- routes are defined in git, applied by a controller, and a bad route can be rolled back by reverting\n- rate limit descriptors live in a separate repo owned by the partnerships team, applied without validation\n- the mTLS rotation is automatic but the root has to be rotated manually every two years, and it's due in march\n- an upstream that fails health checks is ejected for 30 seconds, which is shorter than most of our deploys\n- retries are on by default for 503 and connect failures, including for non-idempotent POSTs\n- there is no per-partner circuit breaking; one slow partner can consume the whole connection pool\n\nwrite the operator's guide, and mark the four things here that are actually dangerous defaults", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.65, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "questions the restaurant chain's IT team sent before signing, which need a proper answer:\n\n\"How quickly does a change to our opening hours take effect in your dispatch system? If we close a location for an emergency, what is the worst case before couriers stop being sent? Do you have an API for this or is it only the portal? What happens to orders already accepted when we close? Can we see, after the fact, which orders were sent to a closed location and why?\"\n\nour honest answers are: up to five minutes, five minutes, portal only with an API in beta, they stay assigned, and no. write the response as documentation rather than an email, and don't oversell what the beta API does", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.65, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "内部向けのオンコール手順書がまだありません。現状、チームが実際にやっていることは次の通りです:\n\n- 最初に見るのはゾーン別のディスパッチ遅延ダッシュボード、5 分を超えたら異常\n- 遅延が特定ゾーンだけなら、そのゾーンの dispatcher プロセスを再起動する（進行中の割り当ては失われるが、20 秒以内に再割り当てされる）\n- 全ゾーンで遅延している場合は redis の接続数を確認する、上限に張り付いていることが多い\n- 「注文が届かない」という問い合わせは、まず websocket ではなく HTTP の状態を見る（websocket は再接続時に最新状態を返さない）\n- デプロイ中の :global 名前衝突は既知の問題で、二重割り当てが起きるが自動で解消される\n- 夜間に redis を再起動してはいけない。クーリエの位置情報がすべて消える\n\nこれをオンコール手順書としてまとめてください。優先順位は夜中に起こされた人が最初に必要とする順で\n\n参考までに、現在のダッシュボードとコマンドはこれだけです:\n\n dispatch_assign_seconds{zone=\"Z3\"} p95 = 6.2s (閾値 5s)\n redis_connected_clients = 9,812 / 10,000\n courier_location_batch_size{zone=\"Z3\"} = 88 (通常は 400 前後)\n\n # ゾーンの dispatcher を再起動する\n bin/lumen rpc 'Lumen.Dispatch.ZoneSupervisor.restart(\"Z3\")'\n # 進行中の割り当てを確認する\n bin/lumen rpc 'Lumen.Dispatch.Dispatcher.inflight(\"Z3\") |> length()'\n\nこれらのコマンドはどこにも書かれておらず、Slack の過去ログを検索して見つけるしかありません", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.65, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "ja"}
|
|
{"prompt": "credo and dialyzer on the elixir app, gate goes on next week:\n\n┃ [W] ↗ Function body is nested too deep (max_nesting: 2)\n┃ lib/lumen/dispatch/assign.ex:88 #{Lumen.Dispatch.assign/2}\n┃ [R] ↗ Function is too complex (CC is 14, max is 9)\n┃ lib/lumen/dispatch/score.ex:22\n┃ [W] ↗ There should be no unused aliases\n┃ lib/lumen/orders/state.ex:4\n\ndialyzer:\nlib/lumen/dispatch/assign.ex:141:no_return\nFunction offer/3 has no local return\nlib/lumen/orders/state.ex:66:pattern_match\nThe pattern can never match the type {:error, _}\n\n3 credo issues, 2 dialyzer findings, and the no_return one looks like it matters", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.35, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "clang-tidy on the modeller, and two of these are our crash clusters:\n\nsrc/undo/boolean.cpp:141:9: warning: 'delete' on a pointer that may be shared [cppcoreguidelines-owning-memory]\nsrc/geom/brep.cpp:412:5: warning: loop deleting raw pointers; consider a container of unique_ptr [modernize-loop-convert]\nsrc/io/save.cpp:88:13: warning: file is truncated before the write succeeds [bugprone-unsafe-file-handling]\nsrc/ui/measure.cpp:22:1: warning: function exceeds recommended size [readability-function-size]\nsrc/plugin/host.cpp:66:22: warning: virtual call in destructor [clang-analyzer-optin.cplusplus.VirtualCall]\n\n5 warnings, and save.cpp:88 is the autosave corruption we've been arguing about", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.4, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "dependabot on the elixir app, three open:\n\nphoenix 1.7.12 → 1.7.18 (patch series; changelog mentions a change to channel reconnect behaviour)\necto_sql 3.11.1 → 3.12.1 (minor; migration lock behaviour changed for multi-node deploys)\nfinch 0.18.0 → 0.19.0 (minor; default pool size per host changed from 50 to 10)\n\nour dispatcher runs on four nodes and does migrations on boot; the courier API is the heaviest user of finch", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.4, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "os alertas do dispatch acordam-nos por nada e falham no que importa:\n\n- alert: DispatchLatency\n expr: histogram_quantile(0.95, dispatch_assign_seconds_bucket) > 5\n for: 1m\n labels: { severity: page }\n\n- alert: CourierOffline\n expr: up{job=\"courier-api\"} == 0\n for: 0m\n labels: { severity: page }\n\n- alert: RedisMemory\n expr: redis_memory_used_bytes / redis_memory_max_bytes > 0.95\n for: 5m\n labels: { severity: ticket }\n\ncomportamento real: a latência passa de 5s em todas as noites às 19h durante o pico; o redis encheu na sexta-feira e o alerta era apenas um ticket, pelo que ninguém viu antes de o dispatch parar durante onze minutos", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.4, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "pt"}
|
|
{"prompt": "nuestro cliente de websocket en flutter está escrito tres veces, una por pantalla:\n\n// order_screen.dart\nfinal ws = WebSocketChannel.connect(uri); ws.stream.listen(_onEvent, onDone: _reconnect);\n\n// courier_screen.dart\nfinal ws = IOWebSocketChannel.connect(uri, pingInterval: Duration(seconds: 20));\nws.stream.listen(_onEvent, onError: (_) => _reconnectWithBackoff());\n\n// tracking_screen.dart\nStreamSubscription? _sub;\nvoid _connect() { _sub = channel.stream.listen(_onEvent); }\n// sin reconexión en absoluto\n\ntres estrategias de reconexión, dos de ellas sin backoff, y ninguna vuelve a pedir el estado actual al reconectar", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "es"}
|
|
{"prompt": "scoring function has grown a term per incident and nobody can explain the weights:\n\ndefp score(courier, order) do\n distance_score(courier, order) * 0.4 +\n acceptance_rate(courier) * 0.2 +\n idle_time(courier) * 0.15 +\n vehicle_fit(courier, order) * 0.1 +\n zone_affinity(courier, order) * 0.05 +\n batching_bonus(courier, order) * 0.05 +\n (if courier.new?, do: 0.05, else: 0.0) -\n (if recently_rejected?(courier, order.restaurant_id), do: 0.3, else: 0.0)\nend\n\nthe weights were tuned by hand in three separate incidents, the rejection penalty was added last week, and nothing is tested", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.65, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "architecture ticket, thinking before code:\n\nDISP-330 — Dispatcher state durability\nThe zone dispatcher is a GenServer holding in-flight assignments in memory, registered via :global, restarted by a one_for_all supervisor. A crash or a rolling deploy loses whatever it was holding, and during deploys :global name conflicts have produced duplicate assignments. The proposal is to move in-flight state into postgres with the GenServer as a cache, or to adopt a proper distributed process registry. Concerns: assignment decisions are latency sensitive (we have a 20 second offer window); postgres is already the bottleneck at dinner peak; and the team has no experience with the alternatives.", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.9, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "compliance requirement for courier data, which legal has now put a date on:\n\n\"Location data of couriers may be retained only for the duration necessary to complete and account for a delivery, and in any case no longer than 90 days. Couriers must be able to obtain a copy of their location history and to have it erased after that period. Aggregated analytics derived from location data must not permit re-identification of an individual courier. Access by staff must be logged and justified.\"\n\nwe keep raw location points indefinitely in redis and postgres, our analytics tables are keyed by courier id, and access is a support tool with no logging. i want the plan in order of legal risk", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.9, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "spec for the gateway's route inspector in our console, which we use during incidents:\n\nRoute inspector\n- Left: route tree grouped by domain, with a health dot per route rolling up its upstreams.\n- Main: the effective configuration for the selected route — filters in order, timeouts, retries, rate limits — with each value showing where it came from (route, domain default, or global).\n- A diff view against the last applied revision, with the git commit and author.\n- Live traffic strip: requests per second, error rate and p99 for the last 15 minutes, updating every 5 seconds.\n- A \"why did this request fail\" box: paste a request id, get the matched route, the filters that ran, and which one returned the error.\n- Dangerous values (retries on non-idempotent methods, no circuit breaker) are flagged inline with an explanation.\n- Read-only for everyone except the two people who can apply changes, and applying goes through git, never directly.", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.75, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "accessibility findings for the modeller's UI, from a government customer's procurement review:\n\n1. The ribbon is navigable only by mouse; keyboard focus skips from the menu bar to the viewport.\n2. Tool state (active/inactive) is conveyed by a subtle background tint failing contrast at 1.9:1.\n3. The measurement panel updates values without announcing them.\n4. Modal dialogs do not return focus to the invoking control on close.\n5. The viewport has no keyboard alternative for selection, which makes the whole product unusable without a mouse.\n6. Error toasts disappear after 3 seconds regardless of length or importance.\n7. High-contrast mode on Windows is ignored entirely; the app draws its own theme.", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "schema we agreed for courier location retention, now it needs building:\n\nCREATE TABLE courier_pings (\n courier_id uuid NOT NULL,\n at timestamptz NOT NULL,\n point geography(Point, 4326) NOT NULL,\n accuracy_m real,\n assignment_id uuid,\n PRIMARY KEY (courier_id, at)\n) PARTITION BY RANGE (at);\n\npartitions are daily; anything older than 90 days must be dropped automatically; a courier's export must be servable within 24 hours of request; erasure must remove pings but keep the delivery record itself; and the analytics tables that currently key on courier_id need a plan of their own because they're derived from this", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "health check port should be 8080", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "drop the stale partner_4471 descriptor", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.25, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "tip screen says \"Thankyou\"", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.1, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "missing handoff case in the enum switch", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.25, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "no retries on POST /v1/payments", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.35, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "CAD team's list, with the enterprise renewals in mind:\n\n- autosave must never truncate in place; write-and-rename plus a real backup chain\n- undo must stop sharing ownership of geometry with live objects\n- cross-platform references need to resolve by content id, which we already store\n- the document class needs splitting before anyone can safely touch any of the above\n- plugin API needs documenting; four customers are guessing\n- assembly load is single-threaded and takes 14 seconds for a 41-part assembly\n\ntwo engineers, and one enterprise renewal decision in eight weeks", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.85, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "request_id filter missing on legacy routes", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.25, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "design tokens versus what the restaurant portal actually uses:\n\ntokens:\n color.surface #FFFFFF / #101317\n color.text.default #10151A / #E8EDF2\n color.accent #E8562A\n color.status.late #B42318\n color.status.ok #067647\n space 4/8/12/16/24/32, radius 6/10/14, focus 2px solid accent, offset 2px\n type: title 20/26, body 14/20, caption 12/16\n\nthe portal: seven hardcoded colours including two versions of the accent, focus styles removed on three interactive components, paddings of 5/7/13/18, and a late-order indicator that is colour-only\n\nbring it onto the tokens, restore focus styles, and give the late indicator a non-colour cue", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.55, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "RedisMemory should page, not ticket", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "connect timeout 30s in prod is too long", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "slide-to-confirm instead of a button", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.4, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "courier location retention has a legal deadline and no design. work through what we keep, for how long, and what erasure means for the analytics derived from it, then implement the partition drop job as the first concrete piece", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": "backendImpl", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.85, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "our dispatch code reaches into the orders context in eleven places to update state directly, which is why the state machine's guarantees are aspirational rather than enforced. route those writes through one function that validates transitions, keep every current transition working exactly as it does, and give me the list of transitions that turn out to be invalid under the documented machine", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "the same \"is this order late\" calculation exists in four places and they disagree by minutes:\n\n# dispatch/lateness.ex\ndef late?(order), do: DateTime.diff(DateTime.utc_now(), order.promised_at) > 0\n\n# restaurant_portal/live/orders.ex\ndef late?(order), do: DateTime.diff(DateTime.utc_now(), order.ready_at) > 300\n\n# courier_app (dart)\nbool isLate(Order o) => DateTime.now().isAfter(o.promisedAt.add(Duration(minutes: 2)));\n\n# analytics/sql/late_orders.sql\nWHERE delivered_at > promised_at + interval '5 minutes'\n\nthe portal is what restaurants see and complain about, the analytics number is what we report to chains in their monthly review, and the two have never matched. i want one definition, applied everywhere, with the analytics figure as the reference because that's the number in contracts", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.65, "slice": "pasted-context", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "stacked delivery card behind the first", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.45, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "56dp targets, couriers wear gloves", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "tool state tint fails contrast", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.25, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "エラーのトーストが3秒で消えます", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.25, "slice": "core", "lang": "ja"}
|
|
{"prompt": "late orders are red only", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.25, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "ribbon can't be reached by keyboard", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.45, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "map keeps the screen awake", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.35, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "focus doesn't return after a dialog", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "filter lists from one template", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "pull save/recovery out of Document", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.65, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "un seul module pour le scoring", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.55, "slice": "core", "lang": "fr"}
|
|
{"prompt": "`ready_at` naming across contexts", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "extract the offer loop from assign", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "inline `zone_affinity`, one caller", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.2, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "context boundaries in the elixir app", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "changelog for modeller 4.2", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "nota para os restaurantes sobre o incidente", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.4, "slice": "core", "lang": "pt"}
|
|
{"prompt": "summarise the durability proposal", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "PR body for the autosave fix", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.3, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "which descriptor wins on a match?", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "¿el undo libera geometría compartida?", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "es"}
|
|
{"prompt": "can retries make an outage worse?", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "walk me through offer acceptance", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "undo crashes on large assemblies", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "one upstream 503s while healthy", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "warum verdoppeln sich Zuweisungen beim Deploy?", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "de"}
|
|
{"prompt": "endpoint for a zone's dispatch backlog", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "dispatch thing", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.55, "slice": "vague-eval", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "crack on", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "vague-eval", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "fewer pages tonight", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.45, "slice": "vague-eval", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "lo del gateway, continúa", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.55, "slice": "vague-eval", "lang": "es"}
|
|
{"prompt": "that CAD thing again", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "vague-eval", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "straighten it out", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.45, "slice": "vague-eval", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "as we discussed", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "vague-eval", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "doc for legal", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.55, "slice": "vague-eval", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "nothing risky today", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.4, "slice": "vague-eval", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "eyes on this one", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.45, "slice": "vague-eval", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "順番はお任せします", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "vague-eval", "lang": "ja"}
|
|
{"prompt": "pick something up", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "vague-eval", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "zone dispatcher holds in-flight assignments in memory, is registered with :global, and loses everything it was holding on a restart, which during rolling deploys has produced both dropped assignments and duplicated ones. i want the options for making that state durable worked through properly — postgres-backed with the process as a cache, a distributed registry, or something else — with the twenty second offer window and the dinner-peak database load as the constraints that actually bind", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.9, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "autosave truncating in place has now cost us two enterprise renewals and the fix is obviously write-and-rename, but the wider question is what our data-durability story should be — backup chains, crash recovery, what we promise a customer whose laptop dies mid-save. i'd like that written down as a position before we patch the one function everyone is angry about", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.85, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "couriers stop publishing location when their phone goes into doze, which is most of an evening shift, and our current answer is a foreground service that android increasingly ignores. i want the realistic options — platform APIs we're not using, batching with the geofence API, accepting lower resolution — with the impact on dispatch quality for each", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.85, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "document class in the modeller owns geometry, undo, selection, saving and the plugin surface, and every one of those has needed changing this quarter. before anyone splits it i'd like agreement on what the pieces are and in what order they move, because a half-finished split is worse than the current mess", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.85, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "four customers write plugins against a header file and a hope, and the behaviours that bite them — UI-thread callbacks, invalidated document pointers, silently ignored version mismatches — are exactly the ones we've never written down. write the plugin developer guide covering the lifecycle, the threading rules and the failure modes the sooner we know roughly how big this is, the better for planning.", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.65, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "gateway's operator guide describes a single cluster from three years ago, while today routes come from git, rate limits from a repo owned by another team with no validation, and four of our defaults are actively dangerous. write the current guide and mark those defaults clearly rather than burying them in a table this has come up in three separate reviews now and never gets done.", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.65, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "nobody can tell me what the boolean undo actually frees, given that the union result shares face pointers with its operands and the geometry library documents itself as \"may reference input geometry\". read the command, the shape destructor and the library's ownership rules together and tell me exactly what is double-freed and when", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.9, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "rate limit configuration has three descriptors that can all match one request, our documentation says the most specific wins, and the observed behaviour suggests all of them apply. work out what the implementation really does, including the nested descriptor case, before i tell a partner their limit is what they think it is flag anything you'd want to change before doing it rather than after.", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.75, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "order state machine's design doc promises an append-only log as the source of truth and a socket that delivers every transition in order, and i believe neither is true any more. go through the doc claim by claim against the code, including the handoff state we added in march there's no rush on this week specifically, but it keeps costing us time.", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "three modules decide whether a courier is available and they disagree about stacked deliveries, staleness and the two-assignment limit, which is why support and dispatch tell couriers different things. consolidate onto one predicate, with the stacking rules as the reference behaviour, and list which couriers become newly eligible or ineligible as a result the last person who touched this left, so there's nobody to ask.", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "gateway filter chains are maintained by hand in four route files and the legacy one is missing request_id, which is why legacy traces are useless. generate the chains from one declaration with per-route exceptions, keeping the applied configuration byte-identical for the three routes that are currently correct we've been burned by guessing at this before, so evidence over instinct please.", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.65, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "active delivery screen has to work one-handed, with gloves, on a phone that's about to die, while the courier is walking. build it to the spec — slide to confirm, queued actions when offline, no screen wake-lock — and tell me which parts of the current screen actively fight those constraints", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "before we make dispatcher state durable i want the design agreed — what's authoritative, what the process caches, how a handover works mid-offer — and then the assignment write path implemented against it so we can measure the latency cost at peak a rough ordering matters more to me than a complete answer right now.", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": "backendImpl", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.9, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "opening-hours API needs to go from beta to something we'd sign a contract on, which is a design question about propagation guarantees before it's an implementation. settle the semantics with me, then build the write path and the dispatch invalidation this is the third time it's bitten us and i'd like it to be the last.", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": "backendImpl", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.85, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "das Dokument-Objekt im Modeller macht alles gleichzeitig und blockiert jede weitere Änderung. Ich hätte gern zuerst einen Schnittplan, welche Verantwortlichkeiten wohin gehen, und danach die Herauslösung des Speicher- und Wiederherstellungsteils", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": "refactor", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.85, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "de"}
|
|
{"prompt": "retry policy needs a per-route-class design rather than one global default, and the payments route needs fixing today regardless. give me the design, then turn retries off for the non-idempotent routes as the immediate step", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": "quickFix", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.75, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "courier API reference has to exist before the second partner fleet integrates, and while writing it please confirm whether location updates faster than 1 Hz are really dropped silently rather than rejected", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": "review", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "plugin guide needs writing and i expect it will surface at least two behaviours we should change rather than document — the silent version mismatch being the obvious one. write the guide, and give me that list separately", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": "review", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.65, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "escribe el documento de decisión sobre los límites de tasa y comprueba en el código qué descriptor gana realmente cuando varios coinciden, porque la documentación y el comportamiento no coinciden", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": "review", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.65, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "es"}
|
|
{"prompt": "on-call runbook for dispatch should be a page rather than folklore, and the redis restart that wipes every courier location deserves a guard rather than a warning. write the runbook, then add the confirmation prompt", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": "quickFix", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "elixir contexts need boundaries and the admin tool's :sys.replace_state call needs to stop existing. restructure the boundaries, and tell me what the admin tool actually needed that it couldn't get through a proper API", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": "review", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.75, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "file references should resolve by content id before falling back to paths, which fixes cross-platform assemblies. make the change, and write the note for customers explaining why files saved before 4.0 still need the manual fix", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": "writing", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.65, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "mTLS added forty milliseconds at p50 and far more at p99, and the handshake count suggests we're not reusing connections at all. diagnose it properly, then fix the pooling configuration so we get the security without the latency", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": "backendImpl", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "app shows stale order status for about a minute after delivery, which correlates with socket reconnects. confirm the mechanism, then change the reconnect path to reconcile against the current state rather than replaying from the client's last event", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": "frontendImpl", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "redis filled up on friday and dispatch stopped, because our eviction policy is noeviction and we mix ephemeral locations with state we can't lose. work out what's actually in there, then split the workloads so a location flood can't take dispatch down whatever you find, write it somewhere the next person will actually look.", "purpose": "debugging", "secondary": "backendImpl", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.75, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "modeller fails a government customer's accessibility review on seven counts including a viewport with no keyboard selection at all. work through them, and write the remediation plan with dates that we can actually send", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": "writing", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "flutter app stores auth tokens in three places and refreshes them in two", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.55, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "rename the `Assignment` struct in dispatch, it means something different in billing", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.45, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "qt widgets subclass a base that reimplements half of QWidget's event handling", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.65, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "could you explain what happens to an accepted order when the restaurant closes afterwards", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.55, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "why does the courier app's location publisher stop when the screen locks", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "someone should check whether a partner can exceed their limit by spreading requests across endpoints", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.65, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "is it expected that a plugin returning true from onCommand suppresses our own built-in command", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "pouvez-vous m'expliquer comment le cache des restaurants est rafraîchi, et pourquoi toutes les cinq minutes ?", "purpose": "review", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.55, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "fr"}
|
|
{"prompt": "docs/dispatch.md describes a two-stage assignment we replaced with scoring last year", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.4, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "header comments on IPlugin promise thread safety that the UI callbacks don't have", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.45, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "write the customer note about the minimum OS versions changing in 4.2", "purpose": "writing", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.35, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "how should we shard dispatch when a city grows past what one zone process can handle", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "what's the right way to test dispatch, where the failure mode is a courier standing outside a closed door", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "i want a position on whether the modeller should move to a document format that supports partial loading", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "two partner fleets want to run their own dispatch and use us only for orders, what would that even mean", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "we need a plan for the modeller's plugin API now that four customers depend on undocumented behaviour", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.75, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "what should happen to in-flight orders when we take a zone offline for a deploy", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "an endpoint that returns why a specific order was assigned to a specific courier, for support", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.6, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "location endpoint should reject rather than silently drop updates faster than 1 Hz", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.45, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "restaurant dashboard needs a late-order strip that survives being watched on a wall screen all day", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "assembly tree should virtualise, a 41-part assembly currently renders every node eagerly", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.55, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "route inspector needs to work when the control plane is down, from the last known config", "purpose": "frontendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.55, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "whatever keeps dinner service running", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.5, "slice": "vague-eval", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "next piece of the gateway work", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.55, "slice": "vague-eval", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "envoy filters reach us through static yaml, the control plane and one hand-edited bootstrap that predates both, which means the effective configuration is genuinely unknown. bring them onto one path, and produce the diff between what we thought was applied and what actually is i'm not attached to the current approach if there's an obviously better one.", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": "review", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "i'd like an honest read on whether our append-only order event log can be trusted as a source of truth, given that the admin tool updates rows directly to fix data, and the fix if it can't — including what to do about the rows already edited i'd rather have the reasoning written down than a quick answer.", "purpose": "review", "secondary": "backendImpl", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.8, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "assignments need an idempotency key so that a retried offer response can't produce a second assignment, but the key's scope depends on whether we treat an offer or an order as the unit. decide that with me, then implement the write path and the conflict response tell me if this is the wrong shape entirely, i won't be offended.", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": "planning", "mixed": true, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "mixed", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "the flutter app keeps auth tokens in secure storage, in a provider and in a module-level variable, refreshing them in two of the three, which is why couriers occasionally get logged out mid-shift. consolidate onto one owner with a single refresh path, and make sure a refresh that fails while the app is backgrounded doesn't silently sign someone out", "purpose": "refactor", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.65, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "our health endpoint reports the dispatcher as healthy when its zone has no couriers connected at all, which is exactly the state we most need to page on, and it also stays green when redis is refusing writes. make it check what actually matters, keep it cheap enough for a two-second interval, and tell me which existing alerts become redundant", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.45, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "staging runs four upstreams and production runs forty-one behind identical connection pool and circuit breaker settings, which is why load-related failures never appear before release. bring the staging numbers into a sensible relationship with production, and note which settings are genuinely per-upstream rather than global so we don't scale the wrong ones", "purpose": "quickFix", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.45, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "a city has grown past what one zone process can handle at dinner peak and the obvious answer is more zones, except that our zones are geographic and couriers cross them constantly. i'd like the options for sharding dispatch worked through — smaller zones with handoff, sharding by order rather than geography, or splitting the process differently — with the cross-zone courier case as the thing that decides it", "purpose": "planning", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.85, "slice": "core", "lang": "en"}
|
|
{"prompt": "per-partner circuit breaking doesn't exist in our gateway, so one slow partner consumes the shared connection pool and everyone's requests queue behind theirs. add breakers scoped per partner with sensible defaults, expose the state so support can see who is tripped, and make sure a tripped breaker fails fast with a distinguishable status rather than a generic 503", "purpose": "backendImpl", "secondary": null, "mixed": false, "difficulty": 0.7, "slice": "boundary", "lang": "en"}
|