You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Thank you for suggesting a quickstart for publication on redhat(dot)com! Please complete the sections below fields so reviewers have enough context and leave checkboxes unchecked.
Summary
Publication readiness checklist
README is clear, concise, and free of typos
README is accurate and includes vertical use case
README is complete and follows template structure
Quickstart runs end-to-end without errors and is reproducible
Titles, descriptions, and tags adhere to MIST guidelines
Insert redhat(dot)com requirements here
Confirm markdown links use accessible "alt text" descriptions
Technical review complete
Peer review complete
Marketing review complete (accurately convey purpose of quickstart ->
demo, not production-ready code supported by RH)
Known issues and requests are documented (or resolved)
Trademark symbol used on non-first mentions throughout README
Category: style | Location: Throughout document: Title, Detailed description section (multiple instances), Requirements section, Deploy section, and other locations
The trademark symbols ® appear multiple times throughout the document on repeated mentions of 'Guassia®', 'Alquimia®', 'Red Hat OpenShift AI®', and other product names. According to Red Hat standards, trademark symbols should only appear on the first mention of a product name in the document.
Suggested Fix: Use 'Guassia®' and 'Alquimia®' only on first mention in the title or opening paragraph. All subsequent mentions should be 'Guassia' and 'Alquimia' without the ® symbol. Same applies to 'Red Hat OpenShift AI®' - use the symbol only on first mention, then 'Red Hat OpenShift AI' or 'OpenShift AI' thereafter.
Requirement: Publishing Guidelines > Naming and branding consistency > The 'First Mention' Rule
Placeholder text '[Gaussia]' used throughout instead of proper product name
Category: content | Location: Multiple locations including: Detailed description ('uses [Gaussia] as the evaluation provider'), Benchmark selection section, Provider registration section, Model and run metadata section, and References section
The README uses '[Gaussia]' in brackets throughout the document instead of the proper product name 'Guassia' or 'Guassia®'. This appears to be placeholder text that was not replaced, making the document appear incomplete and unprofessional.
Suggested Fix: Replace all instances of '[Gaussia]' with 'Guassia' (without brackets). Use 'Guassia®' only on the very first mention if it hasn't already appeared with the trademark symbol.
Broken or placeholder reference links in References section
Category: content | Location: References section, items 1 and 2
The References section contains two links to 'Gaussia documentation' and 'EvalHub provider adapter entrypoint' that both point to 'https://github.com/gaussia-labs/pygaussia', which appears to be a placeholder or incorrect link. These links should point to actual, distinct documentation resources.
Suggested Fix: Verify and update these links to point to the correct documentation URLs. If the actual Gaussia documentation is at a different URL, update accordingly. If both resources are genuinely at the same location, consider combining them into a single reference entry or adding clarifying text explaining why they share the same URL.
Missing 'See it in action' section with video/demo links
Category: structure | Location: Missing between 'Detailed description' and 'Architecture' sections
The README does not include a 'See it in action' section with links to videos, Arcades, or other demonstrations. This is a recommended section that helps users without immediate access to deployment environments understand the quickstart value.
Suggested Fix: Add a '### See it in action' section (H3) after the 'Detailed description' and before 'Architecture diagrams'. Include links to any available video demonstrations, Arcade interactive demos, or screenshots showing the quickstart in use. If no such resources exist yet, consider creating an Arcade demo as recommended in the Contributing Guidelines.
Requirement: Contributing Guidelines > README structure requirements > Order 5: 'See it in action' (Recommended)
Inconsistent product naming: 'Guassia' vs 'Gaussia'
Category: content | Location: Title uses 'Guassia®', but Technical details section (Benchmark selection, Provider registration) and References section use 'Gaussia'
The README title and opening sections use 'Guassia' while later technical sections and references use 'Gaussia' (with different spelling). This inconsistency creates confusion about the actual product name and appears unprofessional.
Suggested Fix: Standardize on one spelling throughout the document. Verify the correct product name with the partner (Alquimia) and use it consistently. If 'Guassia' is correct, update all instances of 'Gaussia' to 'Guassia'. If 'Gaussia' is correct, update the title and opening sections accordingly.
Requirement: Publishing Guidelines > Naming and branding consistency > Use the Official List
ℹ️ Minor Issues (2)
Inconsistent heading capitalization in Table of Contents
Category: formatting | Location: Table of contents section
The Table of Contents shows inconsistent capitalization patterns. Some entries use title case while others use sentence case, creating a minor formatting inconsistency.
Suggested Fix: Standardize heading capitalization throughout the Table of Contents. Recommend using sentence case consistently (capitalize only the first word and proper nouns) to align with Red Hat documentation standards.
Requirement: Publishing Guidelines > README quality standards > MINOR criteria: Minor formatting inconsistencies
Missing 'Troubleshooting' section for complex deployment
Category: structure | Location: Missing optional section after 'Delete' or before 'References'
Given the complexity of this quickstart (multiple components: EvalHub, MLflow, Gaussia provider, judge/guardian models, OpenShift AI integration), a Troubleshooting section would significantly help users diagnose common issues. While there is a link to 'docs/troubleshooting.md' in References, a dedicated section in the main README would improve user experience.
Suggested Fix: Add a '## Troubleshooting' section (H2) that covers common issues such as: EvalHub connection failures, MLflow tracking issues, judge/guardian model authentication problems, and namespace permission errors. Can reference the detailed docs/troubleshooting.md for comprehensive guidance while providing quick solutions for the most common issues.
Category: content | Location: Could be added to 'Detailed description' or 'Requirements' section
Users would benefit from knowing approximately how long this quickstart takes to complete, including deployment time and evaluation run time. This helps users plan their time and set appropriate expectations.
Suggested Fix: Add a note in the 'Detailed description' or at the beginning of the 'Deploy' section indicating estimated time to complete. For example: 'Estimated time to complete: 30-45 minutes for deployment, plus 10-15 minutes per evaluation run.' This helps users understand the time commitment before starting.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Publication suggestion PR
Thank you for suggesting a quickstart for publication on redhat(dot)com! Please complete the sections below fields so reviewers have enough context and leave checkboxes unchecked.
Summary
Publication readiness checklist
demo, not production-ready code supported by RH)