Added submodule for Alquimia quickstart v3

[seanmerrow]

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)

[github-actions]

📋 Automated Documentation Review

Submodule: quickstart/Evaluate-agents-with-gaussia-evalhub
Source Repo: rh-ai-quickstart/Evaluate-agents-with-gaussia-evalhub
Commit: e46f0d9c3abae3d360592d27cd0ebfd3cd5bfcf8

---

📊 Summary

Severity	Count
🚫 Blockers	0
⚠️ Major	6
ℹ️ Minor	2
💡 Suggestions	0
Total	8

---

⚠️ Major Issues (6)

Trademark symbol used on non-first mention of Red Hat OpenShift AI

Category: style | Location: Requirements > Software requirements (line mentioning 'Red Hat OpenShift AI 3.4+')

The README uses 'Red Hat OpenShift AI®' with the registered trademark symbol in the 'Requirements' section under 'Software requirements', but this is not the first mention of the product. The first mention appears in the 'Detailed description' section without a trademark symbol. According to the 'First Mention Rule', the trademark symbol should only appear on the first mention of the product name.

Suggested Fix: Add the trademark symbol to the first mention in the 'Detailed description' section where it states 'namespace-scoped Red Hat OpenShift AI evaluation stack' (change to 'Red Hat OpenShift AI®'). Remove the trademark symbol from subsequent mentions, including in the Software requirements section (change 'Red Hat OpenShift AI 3.4+' to 'OpenShift AI 3.4+' or keep as 'Red Hat OpenShift AI 3.4+' without the symbol).

Requirement: Publishing Guidelines > Naming and branding consistency > The 'First Mention' Rule

---

Inconsistent trademark usage for Guassia and Alquimia

Category: style | Location: Throughout document, starting with H1 title 'Evaluate your fleet of autonomous retail agents' and continuing in multiple sections

The README uses 'Guassia®' and 'Alquimia®' with registered trademark symbols in the H1 title and throughout the document. However, these appear to be partner/third-party product names, not Red Hat products. The trademark symbols are used inconsistently - sometimes present, sometimes absent (e.g., 'Gaussia' without symbol in multiple locations including section headers and technical details).

Suggested Fix: Standardize the usage of Gaussia and Alquimia trademark symbols. If these are registered trademarks, use the ® symbol on first mention only, then drop it for subsequent mentions. Ensure consistency throughout the document. Note the spelling inconsistency: 'Guassia' in title vs 'Gaussia' elsewhere - this should be corrected to use one consistent spelling.

Requirement: Publishing Guidelines > Naming and branding consistency > The 'First Mention' Rule

---

Spelling inconsistency: 'Guassia' vs 'Gaussia'

Category: content | Location: H1 title: 'Evaluate your fleet of autonomous retail agents' subtitle mentions 'Guassia®', while all other sections use 'Gaussia'

The H1 title uses 'Guassia®' while the rest of the document consistently uses 'Gaussia'. This is a significant technical inaccuracy that could confuse users about the actual product name.

Suggested Fix: Correct the spelling in the H1 subtitle to use 'Gaussia®' (with proper trademark formatting as determined by the trademark usage review). Verify the correct spelling with the partner/vendor and use it consistently throughout.

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

---

Missing 'See it in action' section

Category: structure | Location: Should appear after 'Detailed description' section, before or after 'Architecture diagrams'

The README structure requirements specify that a 'See it in action' section (H3) is recommended and should include links to videos/Arcades for users without environments. This section is completely absent from the README.

Suggested Fix: Add a '### See it in action' section after the 'Detailed description' and before or within the 'Architecture' subsection. Include links to demo videos, Arcade walkthroughs, or other interactive content that allows users to preview the quickstart without deploying it. If no such content exists yet, consider creating an Arcade demo as recommended in the Contributing Guidelines.

Requirement: Contributing Guidelines > README structure requirements > Order 5: 'See it in action' (H3, Recommended)

---

Architecture diagram section not properly structured

Category: structure | Location: Currently at 'Detailed description > Architecture', should be standalone H3 after 'See it in action'

The README has an 'Architecture' subsection under 'Detailed description', but according to the README structure requirements, 'Architecture diagrams' should be its own H3 section (order 6) after 'See it in action'. The current structure nests it under 'Detailed description' as an H3, which doesn't follow the prescribed order.

Suggested Fix: Restructure to make 'Architecture' a standalone H3 section at the same level as 'Detailed description', positioned after the recommended 'See it in action' section. The content and diagram can remain the same, just adjust the heading hierarchy.

Requirement: Contributing Guidelines > README structure requirements > Order 6: 'Architecture diagrams' (H3, Required)

---

Unclear if regular user permissions are sufficient

Category: content | Location: Requirements > Required user permissions

The 'Required user permissions' section states permissions needed but doesn't clearly confirm whether these are regular user permissions or if cluster admin is required. The text mentions 'Self-contained OpenShift run: permission to create ConfigMaps, Jobs, Pods, Routes, RoleBindings, ServiceAccounts, Services, Deployments, and MLflow custom resources' which could be interpreted as requiring elevated permissions. This is important because Level 3 requirements explicitly state 'No cluster admin permissions required'.

Suggested Fix: Explicitly state whether cluster admin permissions are required or not. If regular user permissions are sufficient, add a clear statement like 'Note: This quickstart can be deployed with regular user permissions; cluster admin access is not required.' If namespace admin or specific RBAC roles are needed, clearly document what level of access is required and how users can verify they have it.

Requirement: Contributing Guidelines > What Makes a Good Quickstart > Best Practices: 'Deployable by regular users with standard permissions'

---

ℹ️ Minor Issues (2)

Inconsistent heading capitalization in Table of Contents

Category: formatting | Location: Table of contents section at the beginning of the README

The Table of Contents shows inconsistent capitalization styles. Some entries use title case (e.g., 'Detailed description', 'Hardware requirements') while the structure follows sentence case in the actual document sections.

Suggested Fix: Standardize the capitalization in the Table of Contents to match the actual section headings in the document. Use consistent sentence case or title case throughout.

Requirement: Publishing Guidelines > Content quality > Style Guide

---

Missing optional 'References' content

Category: formatting | Location: References section

The 'References' section exists as a heading but contains only three links. While this section is marked as 'Recommended' rather than required, it could be enhanced with additional relevant documentation, blog posts, or external resources to provide more value to users.

Suggested Fix: Consider expanding the References section to include additional relevant resources such as: Red Hat OpenShift AI documentation links, MLflow documentation, EvalHub documentation beyond what's listed, relevant blog posts about agent evaluation, or related Red Hat AI quickstarts. This is optional but would enhance the user experience.

Requirement: Contributing Guidelines > README structure requirements > Order 12: 'Reference' (H2, Recommended)

---

🤖 Automated review powered by Claude

[ai-quickstart-automation]

SLA REMINDER: This PR has been pending review for 5 days. Publication-admin review target is 7 days.

[ai-quickstart-automation]

SLA BREACHED: This PR has been waiting for publication-admin review for 7 days.