Add ranking-system template and repository input to README#20
Conversation
Reviewer's GuideReplaces the placeholder README with a detailed, XML-like template that defines how to construct a ranking system for GitHub repositories by complexity and uniqueness, including purpose, context, constraints, instructions, embedded template and input data, and an observations section. Sequence diagram for applying README ranking-system templatesequenceDiagram
actor DocumentationAnalyst
participant TemplateDocument
participant NewRawData
participant AttachmentFiles
participant OutputDocument
DocumentationAnalyst->>TemplateDocument: Read purpose, context, constraints, instructions
TemplateDocument-->>DocumentationAnalyst: Provide structure and required fields
DocumentationAnalyst->>NewRawData: Extract task_request and repository_list
NewRawData-->>DocumentationAnalyst: Return repositories and task description
DocumentationAnalyst->>AttachmentFiles: Check for corroborating data
AttachmentFiles-->>DocumentationAnalyst: Indicate no attachments provided
DocumentationAnalyst->>DocumentationAnalyst: Perform conflict check and gap filling
DocumentationAnalyst->>OutputDocument: Rebuild document using template structure
DocumentationAnalyst->>OutputDocument: Insert ranking axes, criteria, and repository-focused content
DocumentationAnalyst->>OutputDocument: Add observations about absence of attachments and conflicts
OutputDocument-->>DocumentationAnalyst: Final ranking-system specification in README
Flow diagram for README ranking-system template processingflowchart TD
A[Start task: construct ranking system] --> B[Step 1: Structural mapping<br/>Identify fixed sections and variable fields in template_document]
B --> C[Step 2: Data extraction<br/>Scan new_raw_data for repositories, goals, axes, outputs<br/>Scan attachment_files for corroborating details]
C --> D[Step 3: Conflict check<br/>Compare new_raw_data vs attachment_files and flag discrepancies]
D --> E[Step 4: Drafting and substitution<br/>Rebuild document layout<br/>Replace header and entity blocks with repository-centric content<br/>Rewrite narratives around ranking goal]
E --> F[Step 5: List handling<br/>Preserve list styles<br/>Extend or shrink lists to match repository_list]
F --> G[Step 6: Gap filling<br/>Infer plausible values for any missing mandatory fields]
G --> H[Step 7: Discrepancy reporting<br/>Ensure conflicts are visible<br/>Append OBSERVATIONS section if needed]
H --> I[Step 8: Anti-residue scan<br/>Remove template-specific data<br/>Ensure output is based only on new_raw_data and attachment_files]
I --> J[Final output<br/>Plain text or Markdown ranking-system document<br/>Includes ranked list specification and evaluation guidance]
File-Level Changes
Tips and commandsInteracting with Sourcery
Customizing Your ExperienceAccess your dashboard to:
Getting Help
|
![sourcery-ai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/48477?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hey - I've found 1 issue, and left some high level feedback:
- The "TOTAL SANITIZATION" constraint conflicts with both the "PRESERVE STRUCTURE" requirement and the fact that this README itself is a template; consider clarifying exactly what may or may not be reused (e.g., section tags vs. wording) to avoid ambiguous downstream behavior.
- The hardcoded observation "No attachment files were provided" in the section makes the template specific to this single task run; consider rephrasing it as an example or an instruction for how to report attachment availability instead of embedding a concrete state.
- The nested [[template_document]]/[[new_raw_data]]/[[attachment_files]] structure inside the README is quite dense; adding a brief top-level note that explains how an agent should interpret and use these three blocks (e.g., which parts to treat as sample vs. live input) would make the template easier to apply consistently.
Prompt for AI Agents
Please address the comments from this code review:
## Overall Comments
- The "TOTAL SANITIZATION" constraint conflicts with both the "PRESERVE STRUCTURE" requirement and the fact that this README itself is a template; consider clarifying exactly what may or may not be reused (e.g., section tags vs. wording) to avoid ambiguous downstream behavior.
- The hardcoded observation "No attachment files were provided" in the <observations> section makes the template specific to this single task run; consider rephrasing it as an example or an instruction for how to report attachment availability instead of embedding a concrete state.
- The nested [[template_document]]/[[new_raw_data]]/[[attachment_files]] structure inside the README is quite dense; adding a brief top-level note that explains how an agent should interpret and use these three blocks (e.g., which parts to treat as sample vs. live input) would make the template easier to apply consistently.
## Individual Comments
### Comment 1
<location path="README.md" line_range="15-18" />
<code_context>
+ </role>
+
+ <input_handling>
+ Treat [[attachment_files]] as each and every textual data enclosed within
+ the files attached to this prompt message.
+ </input_handling>
</code_context>
<issue_to_address>
**suggestion (typo):** Consider rephrasing “each and every textual data” for grammatical correctness.
“Each and every textual data” is ungrammatical. Consider: “all textual data” or “each and every piece of textual data,” for example: “Treat [[attachment_files]] as all textual data enclosed within the files attached to this prompt message.”
```suggestion
<input_handling>
Treat [[attachment_files]] as all textual data enclosed within
the files attached to this prompt message.
</input_handling>
```
</issue_to_address>Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.
| <input_handling> | ||
| Treat [[attachment_files]] as each and every textual data enclosed within | ||
| the files attached to this prompt message. | ||
| </input_handling> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
suggestion (typo): Consider rephrasing “each and every textual data” for grammatical correctness.
“Each and every textual data” is ungrammatical. Consider: “all textual data” or “each and every piece of textual data,” for example: “Treat [[attachment_files]] as all textual data enclosed within the files attached to this prompt message.”
| <input_handling> | |
| Treat [[attachment_files]] as each and every textual data enclosed within | |
| the files attached to this prompt message. | |
| </input_handling> | |
| <input_handling> | |
| Treat [[attachment_files]] as all textual data enclosed within | |
| the files attached to this prompt message. | |
| </input_handling> |
Summary of ChangesHello, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request replaces the README placeholder with a comprehensive ranking-system template. It aims to provide a standardized approach for evaluating and ordering GitHub repositories by complexity and uniqueness. The template includes sections for purpose, context, variables, instructions, and output format, ensuring consistent downstream assessments. Highlights
Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for GitHub and other Google products, sign up here. Footnotes
|
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
The pull request completely rewrites the README.md file, replacing a placeholder with a comprehensive XML-structured prompt. This new content defines a task for a documentation analyst to design a ranking system for 65 GitHub repositories, ordering them by project complexity and uniqueness, and includes detailed instructions, constraints, input data, and output specifications for this task.
![cubic-dev-ai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1082092?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
2 issues found across 1 file
Prompt for AI agents (unresolved issues)
Check if these issues are valid — if so, understand the root cause of each and fix them. If appropriate, use sub-agents to investigate and fix each issue separately.
<file name="README.md">
<violation number="1" location="README.md:16">
P3: "each and every textual data" is ungrammatical — "data" is uncountable. Use "all textual data" or "each and every piece of textual data".</violation>
<violation number="2" location="README.md:23">
P2: Unrestricted "Deduce, guess" guidance can cause fabricated ranking content that is not grounded in the provided repository data.</violation>
</file>
Reply with feedback, questions, or to request a fix. Tag @cubic-dev-ai to re-run a review.
| <constraint type="critical">INFERENCE ALLOWED: Deduce, guess, or | ||
| auto-complete information based on plausibility.</constraint> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
P2: Unrestricted "Deduce, guess" guidance can cause fabricated ranking content that is not grounded in the provided repository data.
Prompt for AI agents
Check if this issue is valid — if so, understand the root cause and fix it. At README.md, line 23:
<comment>Unrestricted "Deduce, guess" guidance can cause fabricated ranking content that is not grounded in the provided repository data.</comment>
<file context>
@@ -1 +1,282 @@
+ <constraints>
+ <constraint type="critical">TOTAL SANITIZATION: No identifier or factual
+ description from the template may remain in the result.</constraint>
+ <constraint type="critical">INFERENCE ALLOWED: Deduce, guess, or
+ auto-complete information based on plausibility.</constraint>
+ <constraint type="critical">CONFLICT RESOLUTION: If [[new_raw_data]] and
</file context>
| <constraint type="critical">INFERENCE ALLOWED: Deduce, guess, or | |
| auto-complete information based on plausibility.</constraint> | |
| <constraint type="critical">INFERENCE LIMITED: Infer only structural defaults for missing fields; do not invent repository facts beyond [[new_raw_data]] and [[attachment_files]].</constraint> |
| Treat [[attachment_files]] as each and every textual data enclosed within | ||
| the files attached to this prompt message. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
P3: "each and every textual data" is ungrammatical — "data" is uncountable. Use "all textual data" or "each and every piece of textual data".
Prompt for AI agents
Check if this issue is valid — if so, understand the root cause and fix it. At README.md, line 16:
<comment>"each and every textual data" is ungrammatical — "data" is uncountable. Use "all textual data" or "each and every piece of textual data".</comment>
<file context>
@@ -1 +1,282 @@
+ </role>
+
+ <input_handling>
+ Treat [[attachment_files]] as each and every textual data enclosed within
+ the files attached to this prompt message.
+ </input_handling>
</file context>
| Treat [[attachment_files]] as each and every textual data enclosed within | |
| the files attached to this prompt message. | |
| Treat [[attachment_files]] as all textual data enclosed within | |
| the files attached to this prompt message. |
1 participant
Motivation
complexityanduniqueness.Description
README.mdthat defines purpose, context, variables, instructions, and output format.new_raw_datasection of the template and added anobservationssection noting that no attachment files were provided.Testing
README.mdedits.Codex Task
Summary by Sourcery
Replace the placeholder README with a structured template for designing a repository-ranking system based on project complexity and uniqueness.
Documentation:
Chores:
Summary by cubic
Replaced the placeholder README with a structured template for building a repository-ranking system by complexity and uniqueness. The template includes the full repository list, scoring guidance, and sanitization/inference/conflict-handling rules to standardize future evaluations.
Written for commit dca5411. Summary will update on new commits.