[curriculum-eval] curriculum_assessment.py: checkpoint_quality — regex misses `:white_check_mark:` shortcode, zeroing scores
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
Nobody has claimed this yet.
Assessment
- Difficulty
- 2/5
- Estimated time
- 1-3 hours
- Newbie friendliness
- 72/100
Research direction
Start in .github/skills/curriculum-quantitative-assessment/curriculum_assessment.py, where CHECKPOINT_RE (around line 10) and the has_prereq_section regex are defined. Check the checkpoint-item counting and the activity:checkpoint detection, then confirm against workshop/04-github-actions-intro.md, which uses a :white_check_mark: heading. Done when both the emoji and shortcode forms match, unit tests cover both, and no page with a Checkpoint heading is flagged missing_checkpoint.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Description
File: .github/skills/curriculum-quantitative-assessment/curriculum_assessment.py
Overall Score: 5.4 / 10.0 for the flagged pages (corpus mean: 6.1)
Flagged Dimensions:
| Dimension | Score | Benchmark | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| checkpoint_quality | 0.0 | ≥ 4 checklist items → 10 | -10.0 |
| scaffolding | 5.0 | "Before You Start" present → 10 | -5.0 |
Root Cause (≤ 2 sentences):
CHECKPOINT_RE matches the literal ✅ emoji and the prerequisite regex matches 📋, but workshop files use the :white_check_mark: and :clipboard: shortcodes required by the repo conventions. All 5 findings are flagged missing_checkpoint even though the pages (e.g. 04-github-actions-intro.md, 05-agentic-workflows-intro.md, side-quest-11-06-anthropic-key.md, side-quest-17-07-repo-poisoning.md, side-quest-01-02-environment-reference.md) contain checkpoint sections.
Evidence (quoted from the file):
## :white_check_mark: Checkpoint(workshop/04-github-actions-intro.md, line 138, followed by 5 checklist items) versusCHECKPOINT_RE = re.compile(r"##\s+✅\s*Checkpoint", re.IGNORECASE)(curriculum_assessment.py, line 10)
Learning Science Rationale:
Valid measurement underpins any evidence-based curriculum review. Retrieval-practice checkpoints (Roediger & Karpicke) are a high-value feature, and penalising pages that already have them misdirects improvement effort and hides the real weaknesses: concept overload (Sweller's Cognitive Load Theory) on 04-github-actions-intro.md (28 concepts) and side-quest-11-06-anthropic-key.md (26), and low activity density on long pages.
Improvement Prompt (for an agent):
In .github/skills/curriculum-quantitative-assessment/curriculum_assessment.py, update CHECKPOINT_RE to match both the emoji and the shortcode forms, e.g. r"##\s+(?:✅|:white_check_mark:)\s*Checkpoint", and update the has_prereq_section regex to accept "##\s+(?:📋|:clipboard:)\s*Before You Start" as well as "## Prerequisites". Also check the "activity:checkpoint" evidence detection and checklist-item counting scope so that checkpoint items are counted. Add unit tests with sample text for both forms, rerun the assessment, and confirm no file with a ":white_check_mark: Checkpoint" heading is flagged missing_checkpoint.
Expected Score After Fix: 7.0 / 10.0 for the five flagged pages (checkpoint_quality 10.0, scaffolding 10.0 where "Before You Start" exists)
Generated by 🔬 Curriculum Quality Evaluator · copilot · auto · 22.6 AIC · ⌖ 0.753 AIC · ⊞ 10.4K · ◷
- expires on Oct 15, 2026, 12:55 PM UTC
- Dominant language
- JavaScript
- Stars
- 53
- Forks
- 35
- Avg merge
- 1d 6h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 15
Getting set up
Starts the project's dev container in your browser, under your own GitHub account.
- No Dockerfile or Docker Compose file
- No pull request template
- No contributing guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
More from githubnext/gh-aw-workshop
-
[workshop-sync] workshop/side-quest-17-06-output-injection.md: stale add_comment.cjs line referencesOpendocumentation
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 78/100
githubnext/gh-aw-workshop#4679 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
curriculum documentation quality
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 82/100
githubnext/gh-aw-workshop#4673 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
Difficulty 1/5 Under an hour Newbie friendliness 85/100
githubnext/gh-aw-workshop#4672 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
documentation guidelines
Difficulty 1/5 Under an hour Newbie friendliness 90/100
githubnext/gh-aw-workshop#4670 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
[guidelines] side-quest-11-05-event-triggers.md: [!IMPORTANT] used for non-blocking informationOpendocumentation guidelines
Difficulty 1/5 Under an hour Newbie friendliness 83/100
githubnext/gh-aw-workshop#4669 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
All issues in githubnext/gh-aw-workshop
Similar issues
-
effort:low model:light plan planner:fable-5-1 test-quality tests
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 88/100
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
area: agent area: theme help wanted lane: free-agent roadmap size: S status: needs-brief type: layout type: task
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 60/100
arminazimi/slipway#64 ·
-
release:v5.34
Difficulty 1/5 Under an hour Newbie friendliness 90/100
Jason-Vaughan/TangleClaw#2469 · 1 comment ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
hacktoberfest help wanted skip-changelog
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 85/100
wassim-azi/agy-powerline#74 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 67/100
MadeBaruna/paimon-moe#696 ·