Skip to content

Added submodule for Alquimia quickstart - #110

Closed
seanmerrow wants to merge 1 commit into
rh-ai-quickstart:mainfrom
seanmerrow:alquimia-pub
Closed

Added submodule for Alquimia quickstart#110
seanmerrow wants to merge 1 commit into
rh-ai-quickstart:mainfrom
seanmerrow:alquimia-pub

Conversation

@seanmerrow

Copy link
Copy Markdown

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

  • 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)

@seanmerrow
seanmerrow requested a review from a team as a code owner July 23, 2026 13:35
@seanmerrow seanmerrow closed this Jul 23, 2026
@seanmerrow
seanmerrow deleted the alquimia-pub branch July 23, 2026 13:36
@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

📋 Automated Documentation Review

Submodule: quickstart/Evaluate-agents-with-gaussia-evalhub
Source Repo: rh-ai-quickstart/Evaluate-agents-with-gaussia-evalhub
Commit: 5a4977244478359158caac83a0952174c46266f0


📊 Summary

Severity Count
🚫 Blockers 0
⚠️ Major 5
ℹ️ Minor 2
💡 Suggestions 1
Total 8

⚠️ Major Issues (5)

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.

Requirement: Publishing Guidelines > README quality standards > MAJOR criteria: Structural problems, unclear instructions


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.

Requirement: Publishing Guidelines > README quality standards > MAJOR criteria: Technical inaccuracies, unclear instructions


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.

Requirement: Publishing Guidelines > README quality standards > MINOR criteria: Missing optional sections


💡 Suggestions (1)

Consider adding estimated completion time

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.

Requirement: Publishing Guidelines > Review severity levels > SUGGESTION criteria: Optional enhancements


🤖 Automated review powered by Claude

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant